67 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Build MCP servers using the Leanmcp SDK with decorator-based TypeScript. Use this skill when users ask for "leanmcp", "MCP with decorators", "MCP with authentication", "MCP with elicitation", "MCP with environment injection", or want a simpler, more elegant way to build MCP servers. Leanmcp provides automatic schema generation, dependency injection, authentication, and user input collection.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Interactive PM interview with expertise-adaptive questioning for requirements elicitation
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Authors Vally conformance tests for prompts, instructions, agents, and skills, and refuses jailbreak, prompt-injection, harmful-elicitation, TOS, CoC, and PII-extraction stimuli
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Structured requirements elicitation for analysis requests. Use when scoping new analysis projects, clarifying ambiguous business questions, or documenting analysis acceptance criteria with stakeholders.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Engineering design cycle covering requirements elicitation, specifications writing, constraint identification, iterative prototyping, and design communication. Spans the full loop from problem definition through ideation, analysis, prototyping, testing, and redesign. Includes morphological charts, TRIZ, Pugh matrices, design reviews, and the distinction between functional and non-functional requirements. Use when framing engineering problems, generating design alternatives, writing specifications, or running design reviews.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Classify the information-need of a query and dispatch it to the appropriate retrieval or reasoning strategy. Use before read-side memory access, before multi-strategy retrieval, or any time you'd otherwise default to "one retriever for everything". Returns a strategy label, a token budget, and a retrieval depth so downstream handlers can be specialised. Backed by Pre-Route (arxiv 2605.10235v2) and MemFlow (arxiv 2605.03312v1), which together show LLMs possess latent routing ability elicitable via a structured prompt — and that externalising the routing decision improves small-model performance by ~2x. Triggers: "route this", "what strategy", "before retrieving", "intent classification", or any query whose ideal handling depends on what KIND of question it is.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
The Mileva Method (CRISP) — Phase 1: Clarify. Problem definition, eliciting, painkiller test, buy vs build, AI justification gate, Go/No-Go. Use at the start of any AI implementation project. Triggers on "clarify", "phase 1", "start discovery", "define the problem", "what problem are we solving", or at the beginning of a new client engagement.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use on any core for first-run planning intake — Phase 0 runs the vendored BMAD-METHOD planning shelf, shared by every core, and Phase 1 (mining `04-prd.md` into intent records plus the Add-ons/sync-and-remote-entities decision) is full-stack-app's and pwa-app's shared procedure — identical mechanics, a different decision at step 5/8. Phase 0 also defines compressed intake, the path a user's explicit "just build it" choice takes on full-stack-app, pwa-app, authored, and copywriting cores: one batched round of questions in place of the shelf, writing a thinned archive at the same paths so Phase 1 (or, on copywriting, that core's own mining step), `ux-planner`, and the Re-entry pass all keep their documented source. Also use for the Re-entry pass, which mines new scope into additional intents without re-running the shelf, on any core with a module axis to add an intent to (full-stack-app, pwa-app, authored) — landing-page has none, so its own new-scope path runs through `hedgehog-landing-loop`'s Correction Protocol instead. Invoked by the `planner` agent, which decides the path; don't run standalone. landing-page runs this skill's Phase 0 on first run, then mines the same archive through `hedgehog-landing-loop`'s own planning-intake section, that core's counterpart to this skill's Phase 1. copywriting runs this skill's Phase 0 the same way (full or compressed), then mines the same archive through `hedgehog-copywriting-loop`'s own planning-intake section into a what/audience/register brief — no module axis, so its own new-scope path runs through that loop's Correction Protocol rather than the Re-entry pass below. An authored core runs this skill's Phase 0, then `hedgehog-core-design`, then this skill's Phase 1 mining against the designed layer sequence. A brownfield adoption (`hedgehog-adopt`) never runs this skill's shelf at all — the drivers BMAD elicits are already settled facts of a repo that already exists.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when you want to improve response quality through meta-cognitive reasoning. Applies 15+ reasoning methods to reconsider and refine initial outputs.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Draw out what the user holds but can't say. Use when the user knows something they cannot yet express.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when the user wants to elicit refused directions, generalize them, and close matching tracker items as not planned. Not for duplicates, spam, or items closed as completed or obsolete.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Guidelines for designing tools and action spaces for AI agents. Use when building agent harnesses, designing tool interfaces, creating elicitation mechanisms, or optimizing agent-tool interactions. Covers progressive disclosure, tool design patterns, and lessons from Claude Code development.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when a task needs the judgment of a Computer Systems Analyst — running requirements elicitation and gap analysis against a target system, writing a feasibility study for a build-vs-buy-vs-customize decision, designing a system integration approach (point-to-point vs middleware vs API-led), scoping data-migration risk before a cutover, or choosing between phased and big-bang implementation strategies.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use this skill when building, reviewing, or refreshing a RACI (Responsible / Accountable / Consulted / Informed) matrix for a Salesforce project so that every Salesforce-specific decision — data model change, automation tier choice, security model, integration boundary, deployment, license/edition — has exactly one accountable owner and a documented escalation path that downstream agents can route to. Trigger keywords: RACI matrix salesforce project, stakeholder authority salesforce, escalation path salesforce decisions, who approves data model change, salesforce decision rights, REFUSAL_NEEDS_HUMAN_REVIEW routing. NOT for the change advisory board operating model itself (use admin/change-management-and-deployment). NOT for end-user training rollout plans (use admin/change-management-and-training). NOT for the technical mechanics of permission set assignment authority (use admin/permission-set-architecture). NOT for pure stakeholder requirements elicitation (use admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf). More trigger keywords: who approves a sandbox refresh, who signs off a data load, release update activation owner, delegated admin authority vs RACI, multi-org decision rights, escalation time-box.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use this skill when authoring INVEST-compliant Salesforce user stories from gathered requirements: shaping the As-A/I-Want/So-That stem, writing Given-When-Then acceptance criteria, sizing complexity (S/M/L/XL), splitting stories that are too large for a sprint, and emitting handoff metadata that names the next downstream agent. Trigger keywords: user story, INVEST, story splitting, story sizing, As-A I-Want So-That, story handoff, recommended_agents, backlog item shape. NOT for requirements elicitation or stakeholder interviews (use admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf). NOT for the Given-When-Then technique itself in depth (use admin/acceptance-criteria-given-when-then). NOT for UAT test case design (use admin/uat-test-case-design). NOT for backlog prioritization (use admin/moscow-prioritization-for-sf-backlog).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use this skill when building or maintaining a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) on a Salesforce project: one row per requirement, columns for source, user-story id(s), test-case id(s), defect id(s), sprint, release, and status. Covers forward traceability (req → story → code → test) and backward traceability (test → req). Trigger keywords: RTM, requirements traceability matrix, audit trail for salesforce delivery, traceability for steerco, deferred requirement tracking, regulatory traceability. NOT for eliciting the requirements in the first place — use admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf. NOT for user-story authoring — use admin/user-story-writing-for-salesforce. NOT for UAT test design — use admin/uat-test-case-design. NOT for Apex test design — use apex/test-class-standards. NOT for backlog prioritization — use admin/moscow-prioritization-for-sf-backlog. More triggers: traceability.md, build-layer traceability, REQ-XXX and FG-XXX id mapping, artefact-to-requirement orphan report, coverage-gap report, check_rtm.py --manifest-dir, owning run-time agent column, design decision ref column, metadata API name in a traceability row.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Eliciting and documenting a sales process before it is built in Salesforce: stage sequencing, entry/exit criteria per stage, win/loss analysis requirements, and stage transition rules. Trigger keywords: sales process design, stage discovery, entry criteria, exit criteria, stage gate, win/loss categorisation, sales methodology, pipeline stages, opportunity stage mapping, stage ladder, probability ladder, forecast category mapping, required fields per stage, stage swim lane, discovery workshop, handoff brief. NOT for configuring OpportunityStage, Sales Processes or Path in Setup — use admin/opportunity-management. NOT for cross-functional swim-lane maps — use admin/process-flow-as-is-to-be.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use when scoring a list of business or solution requirements against the *actual* capabilities of a specific Salesforce org so each row can be classified Standard / Configuration / Low-Code / Custom / Unfit, given an effort tier (S/M/L/XL), a risk tag, and an AppExchange suggestion when applicable. Trigger keywords: fit gap salesforce requirements, score requirements against salesforce capabilities, salesforce capability matrix, classify requirement as standard config custom, fit-gap effort tier, AppExchange alternative for requirement. NOT for requirements elicitation (use admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf). NOT for architecture decisions on the GAP rows (use architect/solution-design-patterns and standards/decision-trees/). NOT for license or edition selection (use architect/license-optimization-strategy and architect/org-edition-and-feature-licensing). NOT for OmniStudio-specific fit-gap (use architect/omnistudio-vs-standard-decision).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use this skill to elicit, document, and validate CRM Analytics requirements — covering data source mapping (Salesforce object sync vs external connector vs Data Cloud), transformation needs, audience-specific lens or dashboard views, and drill-down path specifications — before any dataset or dashboard is built. Trigger keywords: CRM Analytics requirements, analytics data source mapping, CRM Analytics audience requirements, analytics visualization requirements. NOT for the formula and target behind each KPI — use admin/analytics-kpi-definition. NOT for building the dashboard once requirements are agreed — use admin/analytics-dashboard-design.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Explore and debate options with fresh documentation and research before committing. Use when facing a real decision with multiple plausible approaches — library/framework choice, architecture call, API or schema design, algorithm selection, or any communication / strategy call where being wrong has cost. Enumerates relevant research domains, looks up current docs and evidence-based methods, weighs options on correctness and elegance, resists bloat. Do NOT use for divergent ideation (brainstorm), extracting user intent (elicit), or reviewing already-written code (quality-review).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Extract tacit knowledge through non-obvious microquestions — things only the user knows that can't be found in code, docs, or research. Use when you're about to guess at intent, context, or constraints during SAFEWORD's understanding flow. Also use when user says 'ask me', 'what do you need to know', or when another skill (bdd, brainstorm, debug) needs user context before proceeding. Do NOT use for questions answerable by reading the codebase or searching the web.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。