1,130 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when building or auditing a radiomics or tabular clinical-ML prediction model with a classical learner (LASSO, SVM, random forest, XGBoost and similar). Enforces nested CV, dimensionality control, in-fold feature selection, feature stability, calibration and external validation.
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 auditing a manuscript item by item against a reporting guideline or risk-of-bias tool. Covers 49 reporting guidelines and risk-of-bias tools (STROBE, CONSORT, STARD, TRIPOD+AI, PRISMA, QUADAS and more), marking each item PRESENT, PARTIAL or MISSING. Not a reviewer critique (/self-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。
Use when designing or auditing how an LLM or multimodal LLM is evaluated on a clinical task (report generation, VQA, text extraction). Covers reference standard, clinical-efficacy metrics beyond BLEU/ROUGE, hallucination, contamination and prompt sensitivity. Imaging models are /model-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。
Use when auditing marketing, messaging, offers, funnels, or content strategy. Triggers on "audit my marketing", "review my landing page", "improve my funnel", "content strategy review", "messaging review", "offer feedback", "marketing checkup", "why isn't my marketing working", "audit my brand". Works at any budget or company size.
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。
Evaluate Agent Skill design quality with an opinionated, practice-derived rubric informed by public specifications and examples. Use when reviewing, auditing, comparing, or improving SKILL.md files and skill packages. Produces evidence-backed findings, optional multi-dimensional scoring, and prioritized changes; treat the result as diagnostic guidance, not official certification or a universal standard.
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。
Guides systematic review of processing documentation for completeness against GDPR Articles 5, 13-14, 24, 28, and 30. Activate when auditing documentation or preparing for inspections. Keywords: documentation review, processing records, completeness, privacy notices, RoPA.
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。
Guides the creation and review of data processing agreements under GDPR Article 28(3), covering all eight mandatory clauses. References the 2021 Standard Contractual Clauses and provides a compliance checklist for processor contracts. Activate when onboarding processors, reviewing DPAs, or auditing processor compliance. Keywords: DPA, data processing agreement, Article 28, processor, mandatory clauses, standard contractual clauses.
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 data lineage tracking for privacy compliance including origin tracking, transformation logging, access auditing, deletion verification, and cross-system lineage graphs. Covers source-to-sink mapping, GDPR Art. 30 RoPA integration, automated lineage discovery, and breach impact scoping. Keywords: data lineage, data provenance, data flow mapping, transformation logging, deletion verification.
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。
Auditing cookie lifetimes against regulatory recommendations and browser policies. Covers CNIL 13-month maximum recommendation, session vs persistent classification, third-party cookie phase-out impact, and Safari ITP duration caps.
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。
Methodology for auditing A/B testing of consent banners to ensure compliance with equal ease of acceptance and rejection. Covers CNIL enforcement patterns including the EUR 150M Google fine, dark pattern detection methodology, manipulative design identification, and regulatory-compliant experimentation 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。
Comprehensive methodology for auditing website cookies and tracking technologies. Covers automated scanning, cookie categorization, lifecycle documentation, and compliance gap analysis referencing the Planet49 CJEU ruling (C-673/17).
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。
Conducts privacy auditing of AI models including training data extraction testing, membership inference attacks, model inversion testing, and attribute inference assessment. Uses ML Privacy Meter and related tools to quantify privacy leakage. Keywords: model audit, membership inference, privacy meter, model inversion, training data extraction.
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 preparing a Spring Boot 3 application for Boot 4, upgrading to Boot 3.5 first, removing deprecated APIs, auditing dependencies, or planning a staged Framework 7 migration.
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。
Configure AWS CloudTrail for audit logging. Set up organization trails and event analysis. Use when auditing AWS activity.
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。
AWS cost optimization, monitoring, and operational excellence expert. Use when analyzing AWS bills, estimating costs, setting up CloudWatch alarms, querying logs, auditing CloudTrail activity, or assessing security posture.
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 AI native file format. EXIF for AI — stamps every file with trust scores, source provenance, and compliance metadata. Embeds into 20+ formats (DOCX, PDF, images, code). EU AI Act, SOX, HIPAA auditing.
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。
Find and fix WCAG 2.2 accessibility issues. Two modes — report (sweep a codebase or page, produce a prioritized written report, no edits) and fix (audit→edit→verify loop on a target). Prefers direct-CDP live-DOM auditing; falls back to a browser-MCP composition or HTML-string audits.
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。
Remove signs of AI-generated writing from prose, and keep it out of a repo. Use when drafting, editing, or reviewing text to make it sound natural and human, or when auditing a whole docs folder for AI slop. Detects 41 patterns across content, language, style, communication, filler, and rhetoric, including: significance inflation, promotional language, -ing tails, vague attributions, AI vocabulary, copula avoidance, negative parallelisms, false agency, em dash overuse, chatbot artifacts, hedging stacks, staccato drama, and aphorism formulas. Includes voice calibration, a no-fabrication rule, statistical tells, and a draft -> audit -> final rewrite loop.
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。
Update Han plugin documentation so every skill, agent, guidance doc, index, and cross-reference is current and accurate. On a non-default branch, scopes the pass to entities the branch actually touched. On the default branch, performs a full documentation sweep across the whole plugin. Use when updating, refreshing, syncing, auditing, or verifying Han's docs after changing skills, agents, references, or top-level guidance — including "update the docs", "doc sweep", "refresh documentation", "audit the docs", "make sure the docs are current". This is a repository-maintenance skill for the Han repo itself, not a general documentation skill — use /project-documentation to document features in arbitrary projects, /han-release to cut a release (and update CHANGELOG), and /update-pr-description for PR bodies.
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。
Detects 55 AI writing patterns and rewrites text in five voice profiles so it reads like a specific human wrote it, with an optional 0-100 AI-tell score. Use when text sounds AI-generated or like a chatbot, when preparing a blog post, README, or LinkedIn post for publication, when auditing prose for AI tells, or when editing a Markdown file in place. Triggers on phrases like "humanize this", "make this sound less AI", "make this sound human", "remove AI tells", "does this read like ChatGPT", and "rewrite so it does not sound AI-generated". Pure Markdown, zero dependencies, no network calls.
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 BIRD Book Deconstructor 2.2 to apply the formal BIRD 2.1 Knowledge Address protocol to complex manuscript text and TheBrain Thoughts. Use when splitting books into chapter/section/item knowledge nodes, assigning Book Address, structured Knowledge Index (Weight, Type, Keyword, Alias), Routes, verified Deep Links, and Semantic Roles; producing BIRD Excel workbooks, TheBrain scaffolds, Roam JSON, monochrome printable double nine-grid cards, or a routed handoff from iMandalArt to A4 eight-page booklets; or auditing and migrating existing BIRD/TheBrain indexes.
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 formal verification artifacts (Isabelle, Coq, Dafny, etc.) and produce structured reports identifying the precise boundary between verified, assumed, and unverified components. Use when assessing verification coverage, understanding trust boundaries, auditing formal proofs, or documenting verification scope. Reports explicitly list verified code, assumptions, axioms, trusted computing base, and unverified components. Conservative and explicit about verification status without attempting to repair or mask gaps.
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。