「eth」の検索結果

GStack design-review method for reviewing rendered UI, landing pages, decks, or visual artifacts for hierarchy, layout, accessibility, and polish.

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。

GStack retrospective method for completed workstreams, identifying what worked, what failed, process changes, and role-skill improvements.

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。

GStack freeze method for pausing writes and limiting work to evidence gathering when a task is unsafe, ambiguous, or production-sensitive.

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。

GStack canary method for staged release thinking, smoke gates, rollout checks, and rollback signals before or after deployment.

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。

GStack report-only QA method for checking web or UI behavior, documenting blockers, and preserving evidence without modifying code.

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。

GStack spec method for turning fuzzy intent into an executable spec with goals, non-goals, acceptance criteria, risks, and downstream role boundaries.

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。

GStack ship method for final landing, PR, changelog, release, and deploy readiness checklists when the user explicitly wants to ship.

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。

GStack design consultation method for critiquing product/UI/visual direction, exploring alternatives, and recommending a design path before production.

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。

GStack plan-tune method for calibrating how many questions to ask, autonomy level, stop conditions, and decision style for a workstream or user preference.

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。

GStack review method for pre-landing code, diff, PR, or implementation review focused on bugs, regressions, missing tests, and release risks.

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。

GStack health-check method for broad project or repository health review across tests, docs, DX, release readiness, and maintainability.

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。

GStack learn method for capturing reusable lessons, triggers, and future retrieval cues after debugging, implementation, or release 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。

GStack investigation method for bugs, incidents, failing tests, regressions, and unclear behavior where evidence and root cause should precede fixes.

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。

Produces a deep, honest peer-review of how someone uses Claude Code by statistically analyzing their local session data (~/.claude/usage-data/ and ~/.claude/projects/). Trigger whenever the user asks to review, analyze, audit, or critique their own Claude Code usage, workflow, habits, or skill level — including phrases like "analyze my cc usage", "review my cc sessions", "peer review my cc workflow", "deeper than /insights", or any ask for an honest audit of their AI workflow. Also covers portfolio/hiring-manager framings (e.g. "portfolio for Anthropic/OpenAI/xAI"), but ALWAYS ask the user in Step 0 which version to build (self / hr / both) before running — never silently produce an HR report, because that version goes to outsiders and needs explicit privacy setup. The HTML report is laid out ledger-first for SELF (opening band, output/team/leak/trend ledgers, then peer review, 9-dim scoring, try-this-week, case study, claim-indexed evidence). The HR variant is a recruiter version v1: identity card, earned badges (threshold-based, earned-only), allowlist-filtered output ledger, one case study, and a methodology & scope disclosure — no scores, no peer-review memo, no charts.

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 LAW a council SEAT is bound by — deliberation protocol, pact obligations, governance, and decision-ledger recording — the discipline half of a seat. Trigger when: - Holding a seat on a bound council (architect, lead-maintainer, process-auditor, or a summoned guest). - Depositing an independent assessment, routing a decision, or recording assent or a finding. - Auditing whether the council honored the pact, the delegation table, or the barring lifecycle. - Prompt contains: /council, council seat, deliberation protocol, pact, delegation table, decision ledger, barring, merge-consent.

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。

Discipline for repairing a false claim once it has propagated: select what depends on it, produce a replacement, and accept with an expiring verdict. Trigger when: - A claim, citation, premise, or documented fact is found wrong and its downstream consequences must be traced and fixed. - A refutation, a failed re-run, a retracted external source, or a human correction lands against something already closed or already promoted. - Prompt contains: /remediation, remediation, retraction, false claim, propagated error, scrub, correction propagation, born-false, became-false, currency verdict, impeachment queue.

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。

Normative sufficiency conditions for Initial Boundary Conditions (IBCs) and the SOP for the cheap-tier boundary refinement loop (/boundary). Trigger when: - Crafting, auditing, or refining a prompt/IBC destined for an expensive (architect-class) model or an autonomous worker dispatch. - Evaluating whether a task frame is sufficient to bound an agent walk. - Prompt contains: /boundary, IBC, initial boundary condition, boundary contract, sufficiency conditions, worker prompt, prompt refinement.

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。

Rules, conventions, and constraints for formatting git commit messages and committing at logical boundaries. Trigger when: - Drafting, revising, or validating git commit messages. - Pausing at commit boundaries under the CORE or CONTINUE workflows. - Evaluating whether a changeset should be split into multiple commits. - Prompt contains keywords: commit message, git commit, conventional commits, commit hygiene, commit guidelines, logical boundary, spaghetti diff, atomic commit, commit boundary.

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。

Durable categorized record-keeping for any predicate-enabled walk. Trigger when: - Classifying a step's output for recording (decision, finding, debt, feedback). - Promoting a scratch artifact to the ledger, to repo/docs, or to a category home (.ledger/tech-debt/, .ledger/process-feedback/). - Auditing whether a draft is structurally ready for its destination. - Running a zero-context sensibility read before committing to promotion. - Recording a known limitation as a tech-debt entry (not prose in the log). - Recording a friction, miss, improvement, or process amendment. - Prompt contains: /record, record-keeping, promote, ledger note, zettelkasten, scratch-to-ledger, zero-context read, over-strip, classification trigger, tech-debt, process-feedback, amendment.

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。

Which docs in nuxt-crouton to trust and how to resolve contradictions between them. Use when two docs disagree, when a doc's claim doesn't match the code ("the README says packages/nuxt-crouton but that dir doesn't exist"), when deciding whether a guide/writeup is authoritative before following it, or when asked "is this doc current", "which doc wins", "why does CLAUDE.md say X but the code says Y". Also the reference for the supersession-banner practice.

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。

Before building new infrastructure or a non-trivial capability, check whether the Nuxt ecosystem, UnJS, Vite, or other OSS already solves it — within our constraints (Nuxt, OSS, self-hostable, no mandatory SaaS). Use when weighing build-vs-adopt or starting new infra/tooling.

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。

How to actually run every kind of test in nuxt-crouton (unit/e2e/typecheck/lint, verified commands) plus the HONEST coverage picture — which packages have real tests vs zero, the dormant skipped/todo cases behind three mocking walls, and what CI truly gates vs what CLAUDE.md claims. Use when asked "how do I run the tests", "is X covered by tests", "what does CI actually check", "why is this suite skipped", "where do I add a test", or before trusting a green build as evidence that something works.

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 crouton mental model for someone who has never seen this repo — what "layer" means (two different things), the two-halves rule, the three app.config registries, team-scoped multi-tenancy, manifest-driven field types, the numbered invariants with the incidents behind them, and the known-weak points. Use when orienting in this codebase for the first time, when a question is shaped like "how does crouton work / why is it built this way / where does X live", when deciding whether a change belongs in a package or a generated layer, when confused by an extends chain or by croutonApps/croutonCollections/croutonLayoutBlocks, or before proposing any structural change. Trigger phrases: "what is a crouton layer", "package vs generated layer", "how does multi-tenancy work here", "why is there a stub component", "where do field types come from", "what invariants must hold".

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。

Cucumber BDD integration for AID methodology. Gherkin-first acceptance criteria with executable specifications. Use for writing feature files, step definitions, and running acceptance 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。