「decide」の検索結果

Shared vocabulary for designing deep modules. Use when the user wants to design or improve a module's interface, find deepening opportunities, decide where a seam goes, make code more testable or AI-navigable, or when another skill needs the deep-module vocabulary.

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。

Analyze context and decide on continuation via Stop hook. Use when determining if work should continue, analyzing completion status, making continuation decisions, or implementing the Two-Claude pattern.

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 implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work - guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup

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。

Search, install, and manage Agent Skills locally and from GitHub, then help decide whether the task really needs a skill or another customization primitive. Use when looking for skills, installing skills, managing a skill collection, or choosing between a skill, prompt, instruction, or agent.

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 Transaction Cost Economics (Williamson, 1975, 1985) to analyze governance structure choices — market, hybrid, or hierarchy — based on transaction characteristics. Use this skill when the user needs to decide make-or-buy, evaluate outsourcing vs vertical integration, design governance mechanisms for inter-firm relationships, or when they ask 'should we build this in-house or outsource', 'why do firms vertically integrate', or 'how should we structure this partnership'.".

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 asked to review a plan, challenge a proposal, run a CEO review, poke holes in an approach, think bigger about scope, or decide whether to expand or reduce the plan.

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 Dunning's OLI Paradigm (Eclectic Theory) to evaluate foreign direct investment decisions based on Ownership, Location, and Internalization advantages. Use this skill when the user needs to decide whether to invest abroad, choose between FDI modes (wholly-owned subsidiary, joint venture, licensing), or explain why a firm internationalizes through FDI rather than export or licensing.".

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 BCG Growth-Share Matrix to analyze a product or business unit portfolio for resource allocation decisions. Use this skill when the user needs to prioritize investments across multiple products, decide which products to grow vs harvest vs divest, or evaluate a portfolio's balance — even if they say 'which products should we invest in' or 'portfolio strategy' without naming BCG.".

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 Ansoff Matrix to evaluate growth strategy options across market and product dimensions. Use this skill when the user needs to decide how to grow — through existing vs new markets and existing vs new products. Also use when the user asks 'how should we grow', 'should we launch a new product or expand to new markets', or 'what's our growth strategy'.".

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。

"Perform break-even analysis to determine the sales volume or revenue needed to cover all costs. Use this skill when the user needs to calculate break-even point, assess margin of safety, evaluate operating leverage, or decide pricing and volume trade-offs — even if they say 'how many units do we need to sell', 'when will we be profitable', or 'what happens if we lower the price'.".

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。

Audits whether a machine-readable regelrecht law model is faithful to the LETTER of the wettekst — and strictly separates the wettekst (leading) from the toelichting (Nota/Memorie van Toelichting; explanatory, not a norm). Runs in critical passes per article/lid and detects four deviation classes: toelichting-bleed (a modeled criterion that the letter only states as an open norm, or not at all), missing verbatim elements (a word/condition such as a "tenzij" or a qualifier dropped from the model), wrong legal_basis anchoring (an endpoint hung on a "kapstok"-article while the operative norm lives elsewhere), and verbatim-drift in text: (an ingetrokken/older redaction). Also detects positief-lid vs uitsluitings-lid conflicts and checks the chapeau for an explicit derogation rule ("zo nodig in afwijking van het eerste lid") before judging precedence. Classifies every finding as modelfout (fix), wettekst-gevolg (report, do not fix), or letter-vs-toelichting-question (jurist decides what is leading + revision signal). Use when the user wants to know if a model is "dicht bij de letter", mentions letter vs toelichting/bedoeling, fidelity, "natuurgetrouw", or before trusting feature outcomes.

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。

Builds and audits a concept-ontology for a regelrecht corpus to decide and verify reference types — cross-law source-binding vs intra-law source-binding vs open-norm leaf vs external-fact leaf — and to catch concept conflation across laws. Core principle: a value's reference type is fixed by WHO derives it, and a binding is sound only when producer and consumer denote the SAME concept; the lexical surface (the word in the text) is not the concept. Detects false friends (one term, different concepts — e.g. a register-based vs a factual "naar de omstandigheden"-based residence/ingezetene concept), orphan plain-params (a value a regulation actually derives, modeled as a brute input), negation/complement re-entry (¬X modeled as an independent leaf next to X), and duplication (one concept re-entered as several independent leafs, losing the single-source-of-truth invariant). Produces a law-level glossary and a stelsel-level concept map with sound same-concept binding edges and flagged lexical-match-but-concept-mismatch edges. Use when deciding whether a value should be cross-law/intra-law/leaf, when the same term means different things across laws, or when a binding might silently conflate concepts.

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。

General workflow for auditing ML CI failures, experiment regressions, training run failures, golden metric failures, and telemetry-backed ML work-product claims from local repositories, logs, metrics, configs, and artifacts. Use when Codex needs to decide whether an ML failure is a model/convergence issue, correctness bug, data/config issue, infrastructure/runtime issue, evaluation/gating policy issue, or unsupported claim, and produce structured evidence-backed 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。

Chart a too-big effort as a shared map of decision tickets on the Gaia headquarters issue tracker, then resolve them one at a time until the way to the destination is clear. Use when someone says: "this is too big for one session", "chart a map", "wayfinder map", "plan this effort", "what do we need to decide first", "open a wayfinder", "work the map", "what's on the frontier", or /wayfinder. Covers any gaia-research org repo — gaia-skill-tree, gaia-research, gaia-skill-heaven and beyond — but every map and every ticket lives on ONE tracker: gaia-research/gaia-skill-tree. This is cartography (planning an effort as decisions), NOT triage of an existing backlog — for that use /gaia-triage.

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。

Curate Gaia bot crawler branches into real-skill catalog entries and clean up processed bot/* branches. Use when the user says: "process bot branches", "curate the crawl output", "clean up bot proposals", "run bot curation", "merge the crawler results", "review bot/* branches", "ingest crawler data", or explicitly types /gaia-bot-curate. Also triggers when the user asks to review pending `bot/*` branches, turn crawler JSON proposals into registry nodes, decide which crawled skills to accept vs reject, or batch-add skills from an automated crawl run. This skill handles the full pipeline: fetch remote bot branches, triage proposals, run `gaia dev` mutations, validate, open a PR, and delete consumed bot branches.

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。

Phase 1 of the feature-pipeline suite — stress-test a CLI command, feature, flag, or module as a developer seeing it for the first time, then file GitHub issues for every distinct finding. Use when someone says "explore X", "test X", "find issues with X", "what's wrong with X", or after /feature-pipeline init. Also triggers standalone as /fp-explore <feature> when you want just the exploration phase without the full pipeline. Reads the target feature from .fp-state.json (or the argument if provided). Completes in one bounded turn and prints the M1 stop hook so the user decides whether to continue to /fp-plan.

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。

Clones a VIDEO ad end to end for a different product or offer, on the Novoads API. The deliverable is a finished rendered MP4 — the WHOLE ad, not its opening, and not a template. Reads the source's style, pacing, camera work, dialogue and tone, adapts it into a Seedance 2.0 prompt, prices it, renders it, files the source beside the clones and diffs each clip's transcript against the approved script. Use for "clone this video ad", "recreate this video for my brand", "make this ad but for my product" when the source is a video, "clone my competitors' VIDEO ads", or a video ad handed over with a product photo. **Among cloners the source's medium decides, not the wording**: "clone this ad" plus a video lands here; a still, or nothing attached, is clone-image-ad, and animating a still as-is is image-to-motion. This pack has no hook-only skill: for the opening alone, clone the whole ad and cut. If it does not move, wrong 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。

Clones a STATIC IMAGE ad into finished ads for your own product, into a reusable prompt TEMPLATE, or both — the template is what makes the ads and the ads are what prove the template. Round-trips the frame through gpt-image-2, nano-banana-pro or reve-2.1 until it reproduces, replaces every brand-specific with a {placeholder}, then fills it with your product pinned to a real photo. Use for "clone this ad for my product", "rebuild this competitor's ad for us", "make me ads like this", "reverse engineer this ad", "make this ad reusable", "add this to my prompt library", or "clone my competitors' ads" with NO file attached — it sources one via spy-competitor-ads rather than asking which. **Among cloners the source's medium decides**: a still, or nothing attached, lands here; "clone this ad" plus a VIDEO is clone-video-ad. NOT for generating an ad from a brief (chatgpt-image-ad, nano-banana-image-ad), nor animating a still as-is (image-to-motion). Refuses to render your product without a real photo of 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。

Updates this skill pack from upstream, and owns the consent that decides whether it ever updates on its own. Checks whether the clone is behind, asks the user — update now, always keep me up to date, not now, or never ask again — and carries out the answer: applies the update through ./scripts/update.sh, records the consent flag the SessionStart hook already reads, snoozes on an escalating ladder, or turns the check off for good. Summarizes what changed between the two commits from the CHANGELOG. Use when the user asks to update or upgrade the pack, get the latest skills or the newest version, when the session banner reports that updates are available, when they ask whether their clone is current, when they want unattended updates switched on or off, or when they want to stop being asked. It never applies an update without an answer, and notify-only is the default.

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 a proposed code change as Leaf Node or Core Code to decide how much AI usage and review rigor is appropriate. Use this skill whenever the user asks "is this leaf or core", "what kind of change is this", "should I vibe code this", "can AI write this", "how rigorous should the review be", or before starting any non-trivial change. Also useful as a sub-step inside other workflows (planning, PR prep, code review) when classification matters. Asks 6 diagnostic questions about propagation range, change frequency, tech-debt tolerance, examples, failure cost, and review intensity, then outputs a clear classification with the recommended approach. Trigger even when the user describes a change without explicitly asking for classification — the answer changes how they should proceed.

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。

Performs fast first-pass triage of an unknown file to decide depth of analysis: file type identification, hashing, reputation lookup, packing/entropy check, and string review. Activates for requests to triage, classify, or do initial assessment of an unknown or suspicious file.

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。

Decide whether a Pulp test earns its place — before writing it, when reviewing one, or when sweeping a subsystem for low-value, duplicated, or mis-routed tests. Applies a four-question authoring gate, a junk-pattern list, a retention bar, and an evidence template for any deletion, and routes kept tests to the right lane (required gate, pr-fast, slow, nightly). Handles "should I add a test for this", "is this test useful", "audit these tests", "reduce test time", "which tests can go", and "move toward functional tests".

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。

Baseline, half-leading, and font-face resolution for Label and captured (browser-imported) text — the arithmetic that decides where a glyph lands and how wide the box must be, plus the measure-vs-paint divergences that make text clip or sit low without any test going red.

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。

Ask Daniel a blocking decision as options with a recommendation and honest pros/cons, rather than prose. Use whenever work is blocked on a judgment call, a product decision, an approval, or a choice between approaches — instead of writing "let me know which you prefer" at the end of a message.

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。