2,268 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Evaluates regulated utility rate-setting with RAB methodology, allowed return analysis, and regulatory reset risk assessment. Use when analyzing regulatory frameworks, modeling rate cases, or evaluating allowed return mechanics.
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。
Evaluates ISDA Master Agreement provisions with close-out netting, termination events, and credit support annexes. Use when reviewing ISDA terms, analyzing CSA provisions, or assessing documentation risk.
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。
Evaluates capital control regimes with repatriation restrictions, investment caps, and regulatory approval requirements. Use when assessing capital controls, evaluating repatriation risk, or analyzing investment restrictions.
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。
Evaluates cross-border transaction complexities including tax treaties, currency, regulatory approvals, and cultural factors. Use when structuring international deals, assessing cross-border risk, or navigating multi-jurisdiction closings.
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。
Evaluates international tax structures with treaty networks, withholding rates, and permanent establishment risk analysis. Use when structuring cross-border tax, analyzing treaty benefits, or evaluating tax-efficient structuring.
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。
Evaluates data centers, fiber networks, and tower assets with capacity analysis, tenant credit, and technology obsolescence risk. Use when analyzing digital infrastructure, evaluating tower portfolios, or assessing data center investments.
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。
Evaluates corporate vulnerability to shareholder activism with governance assessment, valuation gaps, and operational improvement opportunities. Use when assessing activist risk, identifying vulnerabilities, or preparing defensive analyses.
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 analysis using Gary Klein's pre-mortem technique. Assumes complete failure, works backward to identify risks, leading indicators, and circuit breakers. Counters optimism bias by forcing systematic exploration of failure modes before they materialize. Use for project plans, architecture decisions, technology adoption, business strategy, or feature launches. Triggers on "리스크", "위험", "실패하면", "swing-mortem", "뭐가 잘못될 수 있어", "risk", "what could go wrong", "걱정되는 점", "failure modes", "리스크 분석", "위험 분석".
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。
コードベースのアーキテクチャを 6 つの専門エージェントチーム（Claude 5体 + Codex 1体）で 多角的に分析し、リスク・デグレしやすい箇所・改善ポイントを洗い出すスキル。 パフォーマンス、スケーラビリティ、信頼性、セキュリティ、運用、DX、データ整合性、依存関係の 8 観点を 5 グループに分担し、さらに Codex がクロスカットレビュアーとして横断分析する。 エージェント同士が反論・補足・自由な議論を行い、合意形成した結果をレポートとして出力する。 どのプロジェクトでも使える汎用スキル。 Use when: アーキテクチャを分析したい、リファクタリング前にリスクを把握したい、 デグレしやすい箇所を知りたい、コードの健全性を確認したい、大きめの実装前に注意点を洗い出したい、 技術的負債を可視化したい、コードベースの品質を監査したい。 Triggers: "arch review", "アーキテクチャ分析", "アーキテクチャレビュー", "リスク分析", "コード監査", "codebase audit", "技術的負債", "デグレしやすい", "architecture analysis", "risk analysis", "コードの健全性", "品質チェック", "実装前の確認"
複数の実装アプローチを並列チームで設計・議論し、比較して最適な計画を選ぶスキル。 各アプローチに専門グループ（architect, critic, risk-analyst）が付き、グループ内で議論して計画を洗練する。 「どのアプローチがいいか比較したい」「複数の実装方法を検討したい」「計画を並べて比べたい」 「実装方針を複数出して」「アプローチを比較」「どっちがいいか調べて」と言われた時に使用。 実装タスクで迷いがある時、設計の選択肢が複数ある時にも積極的に使う。
Perform a Computer Systems Validation (CSV) assessment following GAMP 5 methodology. Covers user requirements, risk assessment, IQ/OQ/PQ planning, traceability matrix creation, and validation summary reporting. Use when a new computerized system is being introduced in a GxP environment, when an existing validated system is undergoing significant change, when periodic revalidation is required, or when a regulatory inspection demands a validation gap analysis.
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。
Draft a project charter that defines scope, stakeholders, success criteria, and initial risk register. Covers problem statement, RACI matrix, milestone planning, and scope boundaries for both agile and classic methodologies. Use when kicking off a new project or initiative, formalizing scope after an informal start, aligning stakeholders before detailed planning begins, or transitioning from discovery to active project work.
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。
Assess an open-source agent framework for investment readiness by evaluating community health, supersession risk, architecture alignment, and governance sustainability. Produces a four-tier classification (INVEST / EVALUATE-FURTHER / CONTRIBUTE-CAUTIOUSLY / AVOID) to guide resource allocation decisions before committing engineering effort.
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。
AI situational awareness — internal threat detection for hallucination risk, scope creep, and context degradation. Maps Cooper color codes to reasoning states and OODA loop to real-time decisions. Use during any task where reasoning quality matters, when operating in unfamiliar territory, after detecting early warning signs such as an uncertain fact or suspicious tool result, or before high-stakes output like irreversible changes or architectural decisions.
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。
Evaluates market bubble risk through quantitative data-driven analysis using the revised Minsky/Kindleberger framework v2.1. Prioritizes objective metrics (Put/Call, VIX, margin debt, breadth, IPO data) over subjective impressions. Features strict qualitative adjustment criteria with confirmation bias prevention. Supports practical investment decisions with mandatory data collection and mechanical scoring. Use when user asks about bubble risk, valuation concerns, or profit-taking timing.
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。
Stress-test a design decision with premortem/backcast analysis, then produce a risk-calibrated recommendation that maps to ADR fields. Use when: (1) Multiple competing architecture options, (2) Irreversible or high-risk design choices, (3) /discuss identifies a complex trade-off
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。
Calculates CRAP (Change Risk Anti-Patterns) score for .NET methods, classes, or files. Use when the user asks to assess test quality, identify risky untested code, compute CRAP scores, or evaluate whether complex methods have sufficient test coverage. Requires code coverage data (Cobertura XML) and cyclomatic complexity analysis. DO NOT USE FOR: writing tests, general test execution unrelated to coverage/CRAP analysis, or general code coverage reporting without CRAP context.
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。
AI-DLC v3（AI-Driven Development Lifecycle）のオーケストレーター。 define / develop / release / reflect の 4 フェーズコマンドと status / doctor の 補助コマンド、連続実行ラッパ express、旧名エイリアス（inception / construction / operations / retrospective）を統一的にルーティングする。 define / develop（normal / risky 含む）/ release / reflect の各フェーズフローと status / doctor の補助コマンドを実装済み（doctor は shallow scope）。
Use when you need to answer "which attacker techniques do our controls actually stop, and how well?", "what controls should I have for this threat?", or "what telemetry should I collect to detect it?" — joining a customer's or your own security control baseline to ATT&CK techniques using a public, versioned evidence base of 9,545 control-to-technique mappings from six sources. Produces four ranked lists (addressed strongly, addressed weakly, real gaps, and techniques no control anywhere addresses). Use for control gap analysis, security programme prioritisation, board reporting on coverage, or the Resistance Strength side of a FAIR risk assessment. Invoke after /threat-actor-profiling or /lookup-liberty91 has produced a technique list.
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。
"Calculate Altman Z-Score to predict corporate bankruptcy probability from financial ratios. Use this skill when the user needs to assess a company's financial distress risk, screen for bankruptcy-prone firms, or evaluate credit worthiness — even if they say 'bankruptcy prediction', 'financial distress score', or 'Z-score analysis'.".
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 employee turnover prediction models to identify flight risk and retention drivers. Use this skill when the user needs to predict which employees are likely to leave, identify retention risk factors, or prioritize HR interventions — even if they say 'attrition prediction', 'who is going to quit', or 'employee retention model'.".
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 for hands-on repository work when a quiet, risk-scaled engineering method can improve design, execution strategy, implementation, material incorporation, debugging, review, delegation, workspace lifecycle, or verification. Keep clear local changes direct, preserve the complete requested outcome, and add method only where risk or uncertainty justifies it. Do not use for general technical explanations, simple file lookup, casual discussion, or non-engineering writing.
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 commercial contracts, NDAs, MSAs, SOWs, and vendor agreements for obligation clarity, risk allocation, termination, data handling, and negotiation red flags. Use when a user needs a structured contract summary, red flag list, fallback positions, or clause-by-clause review. Do not use as jurisdiction-specific legal advice, litigation strategy, or final legal sign-off.
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。
Draft commercial contracts from scratch by contract type — NDAs, service agreements, vendor contracts, employment agreements, and licensing deals. Follow a clause library approach with risk-balanced terms. Use when creating new contracts. Do not replace legal counsel sign-off on finalized agreements. For reviewing existing contracts, use contract-risk-review instead.
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。