「ngs」の検索結果

Erweitert automation-self-care um Letter Hooks, Preflight-Bootloader, Dokument-Traversierungsregeln und selbstheilende Prompt-Kontext- Anreicherung für KI-Agenten und CLIs ohne native, ereignisgetriebene JSON-Lifecycle-Hooks (wie Antigravity / Gemini CLI). Nutzen, wenn ein Agent Preflight-Regeln injizieren, vor Arbeitsbeginn Memory/Gardener durchsuchen, Verzeichnis-Dokument-Lesestrategien erzwingen (CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md) oder Sidecar-Tasks dynamisch an Skills und Sicherheitsprotokolle routen soll.

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。

Operating Roblox Studio for game development — the visual editor in which the 3D scene is built, tested, and published. Use this skill for: Studio basics (Explorer, Workspace, play-test, saving the place as .rbxl), the interplay with Rojo (Connect, scene-vs-code mode), AI control of Studio via the Roblox-Studio-MCP (execute_luau, insert_from_creator_store, generate_material, screen_capture, Play/Stop, reading the Console), the complete asset-pipeline workflow (Creator Store → clean up → kit → scene → .rbxl → Rojo brings it to life), and above all the MANDATORY malware scan for marketplace assets. Also trigger on "embed an asset from the Store", "Studio MCP not working", "studios: []", "generate material", "save scene", "is this Roblox asset safe", "scripts disappear after 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。

Motivational Interviewing (MI) nach Miller und Rollnick: OARS-Techniken, Change Talk, Veränderungsbereitschaft fördern.

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。

Universeller Skill für LLM-Navigation, Orientierung und Ausfallsicherheit. Stellt aktives Wayfinding, Selbstorientierung und Wiederherstellungsheuristiken bereit, wenn Agenten mit Kontextdrift, fehlschlagenden Werkzeugen, Schleifen oder Sackgassen konfrontiert sind. Enthält die synonymen Strategien survival-routing, dead-reckoning, pathfinder-routing und celestial-routing.

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。

Bei vorhandenem und ausdrücklich autorisiertem lokalem Entscheidungsprofil: wiederkehrende Entscheidungen aus belegtem Feedback vorhersagen, Konfidenz kalibrieren und Vorhersage, Entscheidung und Ausführung strikt trennen.

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。

Autonomer Langlauf-Modus ohne laufende Rückfragen — Startbedingungen (Ziel, Scope, Budgets, Checkpoints), Entscheidungsstufen und Abbruchregeln für unbeaufsichtigte Läufe; erhöht die Ausdauer, nicht die Berechtigung. Nutzen, wenn ausdrücklich ein längerer autonomer Lauf gewünscht ist.

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。

Baut und prüft neue Agentenrollen im ellmos-Ökosystem: native Claude-Code- Subagenten (dauerhafte Rollendefinition) und Companion-Worker (SendMessage- wiederverwendete Instanz für eine Ticket-/Aufgabenserie). Formalisiert das bislang unformalisierte eigene Wissen aus dem laufenden Bau von Agentenrollen (ati-agent, bueroassistent, versicherungs-agent u. a.) zu einem wiederverwendbaren Scaffold-plus-Verify-Ablauf. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn eine neue Rolle entstehen soll ("neue Agentenrolle bauen", "Subagent anlegen", "Companion-Worker starten") oder eine bestehende gegen die Haus-Konventionen geprüft werden soll ("ist dieser Agent richtig aufgesetzt?").

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。

Erstellung von Arbeitsblättern und Übungsmaterialien für Unterricht und Förderung.

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。

Standard-Gerüst für rotierende Pipeline-Checks: Pro Lauf genau ein Ziel aus einer Menge (Projekte, Ordner, Repos) wählen — bevorzugt das am längsten ungeprüfte —, den Check durchführen, Ergebnis in einer Check-Registry und einem Verlaufslog festhalten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein wiederkehrender Check über viele Projekte verteilt werden soll („prüfe regelmäßig alle X auf Y"), wenn eine Automatisierung Doppelprüfungen vermeiden muss, wenn eine Check-Registry/CHECKS-LOG-Struktur angelegt oder benutzt wird, oder wenn eine periodische Qualitätsrunde (Quellencheck, Style-Check, Health-Check, Audit) über eine Pipeline fair verteilt werden soll.

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。

Reißverschluss-Verfahren (englisch: zipper merge) für sehr konfliktreiche Merges: Wenn zwei divergente Branches oder ein PR und sein Zielbranch BEIDE wertvolle, unvereinbar erscheinende Änderungen tragen, wird nicht pauschal eine Seite gewählt, sondern Abschnitt für Abschnitt verglichen, per Entscheidungstabelle (Nimm/Warum) die jeweils bessere Version übernommen, abschnittsweise committet und erst am Ende gepusht. Letzte Eskalationsstufe: Rebuild statt Merge — nur die Absicht/Funktionalität des Branches übernehmen und auf dem aktuellen Stand neu bauen. Nutzen bei: "Merge-Konflikt", "divergente Branches", "main vs. master", "konfliktreicher PR", "zipper merge", "Reißverschluss", "beide Seiten haben Recht", "PR ist zu alt zum Mergen".

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。

Strukturiert bereitgestellte Finanz- und Versicherungsunterlagen als neutrale Übersicht und Checkliste.

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。

Akademisches Studien- und Fristenmanagement mit Quellenprüfung, Datenschutz und realistischer Handlungsplanung.

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。

Systemneutrale Automatisierung für lösungsorientierten Community Outreach und Repo-Recommender in Foren, Reddit und Plattformen nach dem Human-in-the-Loop-Prinzip (EU AI Act konform).

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。

Prüfungsvorbereitung, Selbsttests, Probeklausuren und systematische Fehleranalyse.

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 a DRAFT stakeholder map for one project from the charter, organisation chart, RACI, governance terms, steering minutes, meeting notes and messages the user provides: a stakeholder register, interest and influence ratings each with its stated basis, stance as evidenced by a verbatim fragment with source and date, gaps, and a proposed engagement plan per stakeholder, every line traced to a source and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "build the stakeholder map", "who are the stakeholders on this project", "map interest and influence", "where does each stakeholder stand", "draft the stakeholder engagement plan" or "refresh the stakeholder register". Do not use for a customer account's stakeholders, use account-plan-builder instead; for a one-page brief before one meeting, use meeting-prep-onepager; for logging decisions and risks against the project, use project-status-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews the instructions text and skills of a declarative agent, with its stated capabilities, knowledge sources and audience, for prompt-injection exposure, data-leakage paths, over-broad permissions and missing refusals, and returns an attack-surface map, a findings table with severity, quoted evidence and attack path, one pasteable fix per finding, a probe pack the owner can run and a refusal-coverage table. Use when the user asks to "red-team this agent", "check these instructions for prompt injection", "could this agent leak data", "review the permissions on my agent" or "what should this agent refuse". Do not use for checking a SKILL.md against the format rules, use skill-file-reviewer instead; do not use for designing the launch test set, use agent-evaluation-plan instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews one SKILL.md against the format rules and returns a findings table: strict YAML front matter with exactly name and description, name equal to the folder, description as the trigger, the eight-heading skeleton, capability-neutral wording, safety boundaries. Each finding carries severity, rule identifier, location, quoted evidence and replacement text; the verdict READY, REVISE or BLOCKED is an apparent state and the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "review this SKILL.md", "check my skill file before upload", "lint this skill description", "validate the front matter of this skill" or "score this skill folder". Do not use to write an agent's instructions field, use agent-instructions-drafter instead; for injection or leakage exposures use agent-instructions-red-team; for launch tests use agent-evaluation-plan. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Drafts one knowledge article or known-error article from a resolved incident or ticket thread: symptoms as reported, environment, cause exactly as the resolver stated it, resolution steps as performed, workaround with its limits, verification, things tried without effect, related records, keywords and proposed metadata, every statement traced to a ticket note or marked UNKNOWN, with a redaction log and a question list for the knowledge owner. Never decides a root cause, adds a step or publishes. Use when the user asks to "write a KB article from this ticket", "turn this resolved incident into a knowledge article", "draft a known error record for this", "document the fix we just did" or "make this thread into a how-to for the service desk". Do not use for a procedure the team will execute (runbook, operating procedure, playbook), use runbook-drafter instead; for a post-incident review, use incident-postmortem-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Business Officer archetype, covering commercial model, partnerships, deal structure, market positioning, strategic fit and opportunity cost, and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, commercial risks and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CBO review", "pressure-test this partnership", "check the deal structure" or "what would a commercial executive say about this". Do not use for pipeline, quota, sales-motion or forecast reviews, use cro-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Checks an extracted PFD register as a process model and returns findings and unknowns only: connectivity closure, stream numbering, presence of design conditions, equipment duty text, phase and service labels, package and off-sheet scope, boundaries, operating cases, and agreement between the drawing and attached process documents, then holds at gate G2. Creates no design values. Use when the user asks to "check the process model", "verify connectivity" or "is the PFD ready for enrichment" after gate G1 and before enrichment. Do not use for extraction from the drawing, use pfd-intake-and-extraction instead; do not use to propose lines or instruments, use piping-enrichment. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。