58 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Adversarial code review using the opposite model. Spawns 1–3 reviewers on the opposing model (Claude spawns Codex, Codex spawns Claude) to challenge work from distinct critical lenses. Triggers: "adversarial 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。
Audit the knowledge/ base and the .claude/ skills, agents and workflows for staleness, self-contradiction, and drift from their own stated rules — four independent adversarial auditors (two lenses over two trees) verify every load-bearing claim against the current tree, cross-examine each other within their tree, and reach a consensus on if/what needs changing. Use periodically, after a run of deliveries that changed build config, target layout or the skills themselves, or whenever you suspect the docs have aged out of true.
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。
Challenges a recommendation, design, large change, or any artifact submitted for hard review (spec, proposal, policy, plan) across 5 dimensions (consistency, completeness, actionability, alignment, risk), from the standards of a named senior expert in the artifact's domain and ideally from a fresh context or a different model. Searches assuming defects exist and reports only those that survive evidence. Panel mode runs several independent lenses in parallel on a release candidate, verifies every finding against the current head, and routes confirmed ones to file owners. Use before shipping a significant recommendation, design, large branch, or multi-agent release, or when asked to tear something apart, be brutally honest, or poke holes in it.
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。
游戏设计 (Game Design) — 设计游戏的规则 / 系统 / 机制 / 体验 的从业者认知操作系统 (以电子游戏为主, 含桌游 / 卡牌 / 棋盘游戏): 决定「玩家做什么、为什么有意义、每一刻的体验如何」的学科 —— 区别于游戏程序 (引擎 / 代码)、游戏美术 (视觉 / 音频)、游戏制作 (排期 / 预算 / 团队)。覆盖 (a) 核心设计理论与框架 (MDA 机制-动态-美学 Hunicke/LeBlanc/Zubek + Schell 的「透镜」+ Koster「乐趣即学习」理论 + Sid Meier「一连串有趣的决策」+ Salen & Zimmerman「有意义的游玩」/「二阶设计」/「魔法圈」+ Costikyan 论不确定性 + Suits/Huizinga 游戏哲学), (b) 系统与机制设计 (核心循环 + 游戏经济 sink/source/产出-消耗 + 正负反馈环 + 资源与成长系统 + 涌现 vs 脚本 Will Wright「可能性空间」+ Machinations 经济建模 Dormans + 支配 / 退化策略 + 正交设计 Garfield), (c) 关卡与遭遇设计 (灰盒 blockout + 节奏与张力 + 预告 telegraphing + 主线 vs 探索 + 环境叙事 + 锁钥 gating + 难度曲线), (d) 游戏手感与「juice」(Steve Swink《Game Feel》+ 即时响应 + 屏震 / 反馈 / 打磨 + 输入与镜头 + 「手感」是设计出来的不是附带的), (e) 玩家心理与 UX (Celia Hodent《The Gamer's Brain》+ 心流通道 挑战 vs 技能 Csikszentmihalyi/陈星汉 Jenova Chen + Bartle 玩家类型 + 动机与奖励节奏 + 新手引导 FTUE / 教学化 + 认知负荷 + 无障碍), (f) 平衡与调优 (Ian Schreiber《Game Balance》+ 对称 / 非对称 + 动态难度 DDA + 传递 / 非传递平衡 + nerf/buff + 消除支配策略 + 测试驱动调优), (g) 叙事与任务设计 (ludonarrative 失调 / 和谐 + 环境与系统叙事 + 分支 vs 线性 + Amy Hennig 角色驱动 + 任务结构), (h) 以玩家为中心的迭代流程 (Tracy Fullerton《Game Design Workshop》playcentric + 纸面原型 + 垂直切片 + 测试协议「看而不说 / 你不是你的玩家」+ 快速迭代 + game jam), (i) 类型与形态工艺 (roguelike/roguelite 与程序生成 Derek Yu + 平台跳跃 + RPG 系统 + 策略 4X + 解谜设计 Jonathan Blow + 多人 / PvP 平衡 + 桌游 / 卡牌设计 Reiner Knizia/Richard Garfield/Brenda Romero), (j) F2P / 长线运营 / 商业化设计 (核心 / 元 / 经济循环 + 抽卡 gacha / 开箱 loot box / 战令 battle pass 机制 + 留存 D1/D7/D30 + 转化 + 鲸鱼 + live ops 内容节奏 —— 并诚实处理掠夺式暗黑模式 / 强迫循环 / 剥削式商业化的伦理), (k) 设计师角色与工艺职业 (系统 / 关卡 / 叙事 / UX 设计师之分 + 通才 vs 专才 + 独立作者 vs 3A 团队 + 设计文档 + 传达设计意图 + GDC 工艺社区)。跨 3A / 独立 / 手游 F2P / 桌游。不含 游戏程序 / 引擎 (Unity/Unreal 编码 / 图形 / 网络同步) / 游戏美术 / 动画 / 音频 / 游戏制作 / 项目管理 / 排期 / QA / 游戏作为生意 / 发行 / 市场 / 电竞运营为终点 / 泛泛「我想做游戏」的 game-dev 教程 —— 本 skill 是「设计」学科: 规则 / 系统 / 机制 / 体验。 (Game Design — the cognitive operating system of practitioners who design the rules, systems, mechanics, and experiences of games (video games primarily, plus tabletop/board/card games): the discipline of deciding WHAT the player does, WHY it is meaningful, and HOW the moment-to-moment experience feels — distinct from game programming (builds the engine/code), game art (visuals/audio), and game production (schedule/budget/team). Covers (a) core design theory & frameworks (MDA Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics Hunicke/LeBlanc/Zubek, Schell's Lenses, Koster's theory of fun = learning, Sid Meier 'a series of interesting decisions', Salen & Zimmerman 'meaningful play'/'second-order design'/'magic circle', Costikyan on uncertainty, Suits/Huizinga play philosophy), (b) systems & mechanics design (core loops, game economy sink/source/faucet-drain, feedback loops positive/negative, resource & progression systems, emergence vs scripting Will Wright 'possibility space', Machinations economy modeling Dormans, dominant/degenerate strategy, orthogonal design Garfield), (c) level & encounter design (blockout/greybox, pacing & tension, telegraphing, critical path vs exploration, environmental storytelling, gating & lock-and-key, difficulty curve), (d) game feel & juice (Steve Swink 'Game Feel', moment-to-moment responsiveness, screenshake/feedback/polish, input & camera, the 'feel' is designed not incidental), (e) player psychology & UX (Celia Hodent 'The Gamer's Brain', flow channel challenge-vs-skill Csikszentmihalyi/Jenova Chen, Bartle player types, motivation & reward schedules, onboarding/FTUE/tutorialization, cognitive load, accessibility), (f) balancing & tuning (Ian Schreiber 'Game Balance', symmetry/asymmetry, dynamic difficulty adjustment DDA, transitive/intransitive balance, nerf/buff, dominant strategy elimination, playtesting-driven tuning), (g) narrative & quest design (ludonarrative dissonance/harmony, environmental & systemic storytelling, branching vs linear, Amy Hennig character-driven, quest structure), (h) player-centric iterative process (Tracy Fullerton 'Game Design Workshop' playcentric design, paper prototyping, vertical slice, playtesting protocol 'watch don't talk / you are not your play
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。
Motion through Kowalski, Krehel and Jhey lenses.
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。
Suede-affiliated marketing deliberation that applies documented public frameworks through clearly labeled simulated advisors, surfaces disagreements, and synthesizes a decision. Use when the user wants multiple expert lenses on one bounded marketing question. NOT FOR: factual claims about a living person's private views, primary research (use suede-customer-research), or executing the selected tactic (route to the relevant public Suede skill).
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。
Channeling the documented thinking of named notable figures (an 'itako' medium) — their mental models, heuristics, and decision-style as advisory lenses. Not for decisions (Magi) or personas (Cast).
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。
Deliberating decisions and founder priorities through multi-perspective, named-expert, and YC-style advisory lenses. Use for verdicts, office hours, or expert critique; not implementation.
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。
Runs one or more installed review lenses — adversarial critique, edge cases, verification gaps, structure, prose — and reports triaged findings. Use when, and only when, the user asks you to review a diff, a pull request, or an artifact — code or documents, one or many — and actually says "review"; an explicit skill:bmad-review directive from another skill counts as that ask. A request to act on feedback from an earlier review is a change, not a review. Never invoke this uninvited, including on edits you just made.
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。
Anchor a multidisciplinary unit in a real-world phenomenon that requires multiple subject lenses to understand. Use when designing integrated or phenomenon-based units across disciplines.
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。
Review requirements, plans, or specs with role-specific lenses. Use when the user wants to improve an existing planning document.
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 reviewing, critiquing, or stress-testing an existing strategy document. Evaluates seven dimensions — diagnosis quality, guiding policy strength, action coherence, assumption exposure, falsifiability — with optional 7S, Five Forces, Balanced Scorecard, and Hoshin Kanri lenses. Triggers on: review my strategy, poke holes in this plan, what's weak here, strategy audit, red team this. Does NOT build strategy (use strategy-interview) or brainstorm project ideas (use brainstorm-beagle).
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。
Survey one surface of tdmcp (artist controls, library/packaging, CLI/DX, AI/LLM, or TouchDesigner depth) for candidate NEW features — inventory what exists, cross-check the roadmap, apply the gap-finding lenses, vet each idea, and emit a structured, novelty- and confidence-labelled candidate list to _workspace/discovery/. Use when a td-surveyor agent is scouting a surface during the feature-discovery harness.
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。
"Apply Consumer Culture Theory to analyze consumption as a cultural practice shaped by identity, marketplace cultures, and ideology. Use this skill when the user needs to interpret consumer behavior through cultural lenses, analyze brand communities or subcultures of consumption, decode marketplace ideologies, or when they ask 'why do consumers behave this way culturally', 'what does this consumption mean', or 'how does identity shape buying'.".
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。
Build the executive KPI dashboard for Agentforce: adoption, deflection, latency, cost, quality — KPI definitions, data sources, CRM Analytics lenses, alert thresholds. NOT for the platform's own session tracing, Agent Analytics and health monitoring — use agentforce/agentforce-observability. NOT for scoring agent answer quality offline — use agentforce/agentforce-eval-harness.
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 deciding whether Salesforce Reports, CRM Analytics, or Tableau is the right level of analytics tooling, and when reviewing or troubleshooting basic CRM Analytics designs. Triggers: 'CRM Analytics', 'Einstein Analytics', 'Tableau CRM', 'lens', 'dataset', 'dataflow', 'analytics dashboard', 'license requirement'. NOT for a detailed CRM Analytics vs Tableau licensing and platform comparison — use architect/crm-analytics-vs-tableau-decision. NOT for building the app, lenses and datasets — use admin/crm-analytics-app-creation.
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 driving adoption of CRM Analytics (Einstein Analytics) across an org — the Analytics Adoption App for measuring who uses which dashboards, embedding analytics into Lightning pages, pinning dashboards to the Analytics home page, self-service personas, and analytics success metrics. Triggers: analytics adoption, dashboard usage tracking, embedded analytics strategy, self-service analytics enablement, CRM Analytics rollout. NOT for building the dashboards — use admin/analytics-dashboard-design. NOT for the app, datasets and lenses — use admin/crm-analytics-app-creation. NOT for non-analytics rollout training — use admin/change-management-and-training.
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。
Abductive reasoning about causes. Takes a phenomenon, separates observations from interpretations, then spawns diagnosticians applying different reasoning lenses (technical, human-factors, process, incentive-structure, environmental, temporal, measurement-artifact, statistical) in isolation. Orchestrator evaluates candidate causes for fit-against-evidence, calibrates confidence honestly, and reports leading candidate(s) with distinguishing evidence needed. Produces feedback only — no code, no tickets, no artifacts.
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。
Problem redefinition before problem solving. Takes a stated problem, extracts its premises, then spawns reframers applying different lenses (problem-vs-symptom, scope-shift, stakeholder-shift, level-of-abstraction, time-horizon, inversion, category-shift, constraints-shift) in isolation, and synthesizes the alternatives into a report with an orchestrator recommendation. Produces feedback only — no code, no tickets, no artifacts.
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。
Good-faith adversarial scrutiny of an idea or plan. Spawns critical skeptics across relevant lenses, pairs them with an advocate defending the idea, and synthesizes the exchange into a report. Produces feedback only — no code, no tickets, no artifacts.
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。
Retrospective learning from a completed experience. Takes a project, incident, decision that played out, or time period; gathers ground truth (observations) separately from recollections; spawns reflectors applying different lenses (what-worked-vs-got-lucky, what-didn't, what-surprised, system-rewards-vs-intent, decisions-that-aged, what-to-tell-past-self, patterns-that-recur) in isolation; synthesizes into updated mental models as first-class output. Produces feedback only — no code, no tickets, no artifacts.
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。
Prospective failure imagination for a plan, decision, or running system. Operates in two modes — **plan mode** (a plan has not yet been committed to; imagine its catastrophic failure broadly) and **scenario mode** (a specific catastrophic scenario is posed against an existing system; investigate causes against the actual code and architecture). Spawns parallel pre-mortemers in isolation across three categories of lens: standard failure classes (technical, operational, estimation, scope, adoption, dependency, team, incentive, detection, reversibility, adversarial), 0-3 ad-hoc target-specific lenses the orchestrator names when warranted, and a first-principles lens that always runs to catch what the prescribed taxonomy misses. Synthesizes into a prioritized risk register with early-warning signals. Produces feedback only — no code, no tickets, no artifacts.
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。
Select complementary review lenses for a requested multi-perspective review or a high-risk GEODE change. Covers design, agent constraints, gateway operations, and CLI/tool behavior; not a mandatory four-agent gate for ordinary edits.
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。
Relentlessly interview the user about THEIR plan or design — one question at a time — resolving each branch of a decision tree until shared understanding. Claude is the interviewer; the user is the interviewee. Triggers on "grill me", "stress-test this plan", "get grilled on my design", "interrogate my plan". Checkpoints every answer to docs/knowledge/<slug>.md so progress survives a context-window reset. Flags knowledge the user cannot answer as a gap to chase. Do NOT use to PROPOSE solutions or compare approaches (→ mk:brainstorming). Do NOT use to validate "is this worth building?" (→ mk:office-hours). Do NOT use when Claude should ANSWER questions about the repo (→ mk:ask-me). Do NOT use for a one-shot review of an existing plan (→ mk:plan-ceo-review). Do NOT use to apply named reasoning lenses to findings (→ mk:elicit).
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。