8,342 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Maintain an online covariance over named series whose set changes over time (e.g. assets entering and leaving). Use when observations arrive as dicts keyed by name rather than fixed-length vectors. Wraps precise's keyed / FixedUniverse / DynamicUniverse adapters.
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。
Refactor and review SwiftUI view files for consistent structure, dependency injection, and Observation usage. Use when asked to clean up a SwiftUI view’s layout/ordering, handle view models safely (non-optional when possible), or standardize how dependencies and @Observable state are initialized and passed.
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。
Personal CRM and contact management - manage contacts, relationships, and interactions. Use when the user discusses contacts, people, or relationship tracking.
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 pipeline DOT file has passed structural validation but may still have flow inefficiencies, spec fidelity gaps, or information loss in prompts. Use after dotfile-audit or dotfile-from-spec when you want to deeply verify a pipeline captures everything from the original spec. Use when prompts might be missing critical domain rules, data models, or invariants.
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。
Show per-asset vuln-class coverage gaps for the active engagement so nothing in scope is skipped. Use when asked "coverage", "what haven't we tested", "test gaps", "are we thorough", or before calling an engagement done.
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。
Synthesize raw recon/test output into engagement state. Reads everything dropped in targets/<active>/ingest/, extracts hosts/assets/creds/paths, merges into state.md/loot.md/Killchain.md, logs it, archives the raw files. Works for pentest, bugbounty, and ctf. Use when asked to "ingest", "synthesize findings", "process recon", or after dropping tool output in the ingest folder.
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。
This skill should be used when the user asks to "revise a chapter", "continuity check", "find inconsistencies", "audit character state", "check timeline consistency", "developmental edit", "structural revision", "reverse outline", "cut a subplot", "revision passes", "what pass next", "pacing check" as a revision pass, "clue check", "cut to a word count", or "length pass", or to prepare existing story material for the next revision pass. NOT for planning book structure (use plot-structure), scene-level craft (use scene-craft), voice consistency (use voice-style), or reconciling a chapter drafted by discovery (use discovery-drafting).
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。
POS (Point of Sale) architecture and patterns. Use when writing, editing, exploring, debugging, fixing bugs, implementing features, or reviewing WooPos-prefixed classes or files under ui/woopos/. POS uses a different architecture than the main app — plain ViewModel (not ScopedViewModel), pure Compose (no Fragments), Compose Navigation (no nav graphs), parent-child SharedFlow event bus. Loading this skill prevents applying main-app patterns that would be wrong for POS. For analytics use `pos-analytics`, for tests use `pos-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。
Main app unit testing patterns (BaseUnitTest, BDD naming, mockito-kotlin, AssertJ, StateFlow/LiveData capture, coroutine dispatchers). Use when writing, editing, exploring, debugging, or reviewing unit tests in the store management app. For POS (WooPos*) tests, use the `pos-tests` skill 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。
Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.
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 deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for planning the change its findings imply — use plan-a-change. Not for discovering bounded contexts, ubiquitous language, or where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.
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。
Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural assessment.
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 a gap analysis between two artifacts (a current state and a desired state) and produces a plain-language, stakeholder-readable report indexed by stable gap IDs. Use when the user wants to compare, evaluate, audit, or reconcile one artifact against another. Does not investigate runtime bugs — use investigate. Does not assess module-level architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not research open-ended options with no second artifact to compare against — use research.
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。
Researches an open-ended question — options, possible solutions, prior art, trade-offs, or how something works — and produces a durable, evidence-backed, adversarially-validated report that recommends an option without committing the team to any artifact. Use when you want to research approaches, weigh options, survey prior art or the state of the art, or understand how something works before committing to a direction. Does not diagnose a bug, failure, or root cause — use investigate. Does not specify a feature — use plan-a-feature. Does not create or update a coding standard — use coding-standard. Does not compare two concrete artifacts for gaps — use gap-analysis. Does not assess an existing module's architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback.
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。
Analyzes an existing codebase using strategic Domain-Driven Design to discover bounded contexts, surface ubiquitous language and semantic collisions, find places where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries, and produce an evidence-backed domain and context map. Use when the goal is DDD-specific: bounded context discovery, ubiquitous language analysis, domain model discovery, or mapping contested ownership and responsibility. The entire repository is a valid scope; no module or directory must be named first. Does not assess architectural coupling, cohesion, or technical debt — use architectural-analysis. Does not design service communication, integration patterns, or deployment topology — use architectural-analysis or plan-a-feature. Does not refactor code, diagnose bugs, or review code quality — use refactor, investigate, or code-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。
Plans an architecture-driven change to code that already exists: module boundaries, type responsibilities, layering, coupling, and the public surface a revision moves. Produces a buildable change plan that names the types, modules, and methods involved and records the surface delta each change makes. Use when the user wants to plan, scope, or sequence a restructure, extraction, split, consolidation, responsibility shift, or API revision of existing code, including "these responsibilities are wrong, plan the fix". Does not assess an area and stop at findings — use architectural-analysis. Does not specify new behavior — use plan-a-feature. Does not diagnose a bug — use investigate. Does not write the code — use refactor to restructure it or tdd to build 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。
Restructure existing code without changing its behavior, through a test-gated refactoring loop: a named target, a green suite over that target before any edit, a planned sequence of small named refactorings, and the full suite re-run after every step. Use when the user wants to refactor, restructure, clean up, simplify, or improve the design of existing code, or to apply refactoring recommendations from a code-review or architectural-analysis report. This skill changes code; it does not review code (use code-review), assess architecture (use architectural-analysis), plan a multi-module restructure before executing it (use plan-a-change), map domain boundaries before restructuring along them (use ddd-analysis), or build new behavior test-first (use tdd). Do not use it on code inside an active tdd loop; the refactor step of tdd owns that cleanup. Runs its planned sequence to completion without pausing for review; to review each named refactoring as it lands, use pairing.
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。
Sharpens and stress-tests an existing plan file through multiple codebase-grounded review passes, editing it in place and recording every finding and iteration in cross-referenced companion files. Use this skill whenever the user wants to iterate on, refine, tighten, or improve a plan. Also use it when the user asks to verify, validate, or confirm feasibility of an approach. Does not implement plan steps, write test plans, review code, or investigate bugs, and does not generate new plans from scratch — use plan-a-feature for a new plan. Runs its review rounds to completion without pausing between them; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.
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。
Evidence-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not plan the structural change a root cause calls for — use plan-a-change. Does not map bounded contexts or domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.
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。
Designs the contract for an API change inside one codebase — a component's props, a function surface, URL or query parameters, an event payload, or a module boundary — through a discovery pass, an options document with one recommendation, a question round, and an adversarial validation round, with every element of the contract justified from one stated goal. Use when you want to design, shape, decide, or nail down an interface, contract, signature, or API change for a capability you can already describe, sized for roughly one pull request. Produces a design document and changes no code. Does not specify what a feature should do — use plan-a-feature. Does not plan delivery or sequencing — use plan-implementation. Does not assess the architecture of existing code — use architectural-analysis. Does not write the code — use tdd. Does not restructure existing code — use refactor. Runs its rounds without pausing for review; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.
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。
US state privacy law applicability assessment tool. Evaluates revenue thresholds, data volume thresholds, business exemptions (GLBA, HIPAA, nonprofits), employee data carve-outs, and SBA small business determinations across all enacted state privacy laws.
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。
Implements the UK Age Appropriate Design Code (Children's Code) 15 standards under the Data Protection Act 2018 Section 123. Covers best interests assessment, age-appropriate application, transparency, data minimization, geolocation restrictions, and profiling defaults. Keywords: AADC, Children's Code, ICO, age appropriate design, UK.
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。
Vendor certification acceptance criteria and equivalence mapping. Covers ISO 27701, SOC 2 Privacy, APEC CBPR, EU Code of Conduct evaluation, certification scope analysis, gap supplementation requirements, and cross-framework equivalence assessment.
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。
Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) compliance implementation. Covers 5 consumer rights, controller obligations, processor requirements, opt-in for sensitive data, data protection impact assessments, AG enforcement, and cure period provisions. Effective January 1, 2023.
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。