662 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work — guides completion of development work by presenting structured options for merge, PR, or cleanup
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。
Run a live investigation as an operator-driven query loop: the operator runs each query on the live system and pastes the result back, and you guide the investigation one labelled query at a time. Use alongside support-assist (which covers what to investigate) whenever someone is pasting query or command output back from a deployment, especially during an incident. Covers labelling, pacing, making each query decide the next step, version-grounding, and keeping queries cheap and correctly classified.
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。
Deep reflection skill - read memory and context, decide whether there is something worth sending
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 what this repository has already decided about its vulnerabilities, read from the durable record rather than by scanning again — open versus resolved, the decision taken on each, and what is still waiting. Use when picking up triage after a break, auditing past decisions, onboarding to a repository with security history, or checking nothing high-severity is open before a release.
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。
Choose the design and the numbers a research run can honestly claim — write the structured METHOD RECORD (databases, date of access, search string, criteria, screening counts) that r0 validates, pick the claim strength a design can actually carry, record a statistic as data rather than prose, route to the reporting guideline the design owes, and decide what to preregister. Use when a run's question, design, search or statistics have to be settled before the writing, or when a claim needs a strength or a number attached to 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。
Knowledge base from NIST SP 800-37 Revision 2, the Risk Management Framework (RMF) for information systems and organizations. Use for the seven RMF steps (Prepare, Categorize, Select, Implement, Assess, Authorize, Monitor) and their tasks; the three-tier organization-wide risk model; authorization boundaries; the requirements-to-controls relationship; security categorization (FIPS 199/200 high-water mark) and control selection/tailoring (SP 800-53/53B baselines); assessment, the authorization decision and risk acceptance, continuous monitoring and ongoing authorization; the security/privacy distinction; and supply chain risk management. This is the security-and-privacy-risk-governance edge of systems engineering — it governs how much protection and whether to accept residual risk, complementing the disciplines that decide how protection is built. Does NOT reproduce the SP 800-53 control catalog or its baselines, the FIPS impact tables, or the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process text; it names and routes to them rather than restating them.
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。
Router and protocol for reading and extracting web content. Decides first WHAT is needed (main text vs. structure vs. screenshot) and then WHICH tool available on the system delivers it. If nothing suitable is present, it recommends installing the web-scraper module.
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。
Erzeugt aus einem Bestand offener und gefallener Entscheidungen einen strukturierten ASCII-Abhängigkeitsgraphen (maximal 100 Spalten) für das Terminal. Bewertet Knoten nach fünf festen Kriterien: sinnvoll, empfohlen, usertypisch (Richtung und decision-avatar-Konfidenz getrennt), zusammenpassend und widersprechend; Kanten tragen Beziehungstyp und Belegstatus. Deckt Blocker, Freischaltungen, Reihenfolgen und widersprüchliche Empfehlungen gnadenlos auf. Nutze diesen Skill bei "welche Entscheidungen hängen voneinander ab", "Abhängigkeitsgraph der Entscheidungen", "Entscheidungspfad visualisieren", "Widersprüche zwischen Entscheidungen prüfen", "Reihenfolge der Beschlüsse", /decision-path. NICHT nutzen, um Entscheidungen erst zu inventarisieren -- das macht decision-briefing; NICHT nutzen, um das empfohlene Gesamtkonzept zur Abnahme zu bündeln -- das macht decision-draw; NICHT für kompakte Fünfteiler- Einzelblöcke mit Optionen und Pro/Contra -- das macht decision-shot; NICHT für die Einzelfall-Erwägung mit Frameworks -- das macht decide.
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。
Verdichtet gebündelte offene Entscheidungen zu EINEM zusammenhängenden, prosa-basierten Gesamtkonzept auf Basis aller empfohlenen Varianten. Zeigt, wie die Teilsysteme nach der Umsetzung konkret ineinandergreifen, statt den Nutzer durch Dutzende isolierte Einzelfragen zu zwingen. Der Nutzer nimmt das Bild als Ganzes ab oder gibt zielgerichtete Korrekturen, die automatisch in Einzelentscheidungen übersetzt und über decision-briefing Phase 4 ins Register zurückgeschrieben werden. Nutze diesen Skill bei "wie sieht das Ganze aus wenn wir allem zustimmen", "zeichne mir das Gesamtbild", "Gesamtkonzept der Entscheidungen", "decision draw", /decision-draw, "wie greifen die Systeme zusammen". NICHT nutzen, wenn Alternativen pro Einzelpunkt diskutiert werden sollen -- das macht decision-briefing; NICHT für den Abhängigkeitsgraphen -- das macht decision-path; NICHT für strukturierte Einzelblöcke mit Optionen und Pro/Contra (auch bei eng zusammengehörigen Gruppen) -- das macht decision-shot; NICHT zur Herleitung einer einzelnen Entscheidung -- das macht decide.
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。
Structured decision making: Pro/Con matrix, weighted scoring, decision tree, scenario analysis, and Eisenhower matrix.
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。
Meta-skill: Structured thinking as a 3-phase workflow. Combines analysis (think), ideation (brainstorm), and decision-making (decide) into one continuous process.
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。
Abbruchbedingung für autonome Loops: So weit wie möglich selbständig weiterarbeiten UND einen Loop erst beenden, wenn belegt ist, dass keine autonom ausführbare Aufgabe mehr vorliegt. Der bloße Eindruck "nichts mehr zu tun" reicht NICHT — er löst eine vierstufige Prüfkette aus (think/decide, _CONTROL/_DECISIONS, Gardener/USMC, decision-avatar/BYUM), die zuerst neue Aufgaben GEWINNEN muss, bevor der Loop enden darf. Jeder Kettenschritt meldet found/empty/unavailable statt eines binären Ergebnisses — "exhausted" gilt nur, wenn ALLE Quellen tatsächlich befragbar waren; ist mindestens eine Quelle unavailable, meldet der Skill "blind" statt "exhausted" und behauptet nichts Ungeprüftes. Nutze diesen Skill bei /work-autonomous, /waafap, "arbeite autonom weiter bis nichts mehr zu tun ist", als Goal-Bedingung innerhalb eines /loop, oder wenn geprüft werden soll, ob wirklich keine autonome Arbeit mehr übrig ist, bevor ein Loop/eine Session beendet wird.
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。
Turns a control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, use claims-evidence-map. 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 deal's notes and timeline (CRM opportunity record, activity log, emails, meeting notes, forecast entries) for risk signals such as a single contact thread, no identified budget owner, slipped or missing dates, silence after a proposal, an undefined decision process or a competitor named late, and returns a DRAFT risk register: each signal with the quoted evidence and its date, a severity on a stated scale, and one proposed next action with an owner role for the user to decide on. Use when the user asks to "review the risks on this deal", "why is this opportunity stalling", "is this deal single-threaded", "deal health check before the forecast call" or "what should we do next on <opportunity>". Do not use for a whole-account plan, use account-plan-builder instead; for scoring early leads against a rubric use lead-qualification-scorer. 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。
Reads a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, use corrective-action-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。
Prepares a DRAFT internal audit pack from the audit plan: scope as stated, criteria with clauses quoted from the documents provided, document requests per auditee with due dates, open interview questions per process and role, previous findings to follow up and a readiness checklist. Never pre-judges conformity, writes findings or selects the sample; the lead auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the internal audit", "build the audit pack from this plan", "draft the document requests and interview questions" or "get us ready for the supplier audit". Do not use for evidence requests built from a control list, use control-evidence-request-pack instead; to chase actions from earlier audits, use corrective-action-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。
Compares one policy against one requirement set (standard, regulation, contract schedule or customer requirement) clause by clause and returns a draft gap review: each requirement element, the policy clause that appears to address it, an apparent match state, and every gap as a question with the clause reference on both sides. Never concludes that the policy complies; the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "gap our policy against the standard", "map this policy to the regulation clause by clause", "check the security policy against the customer's contract schedule", "compare our policy with the new edition" or "where does our policy fall short of the requirements". Do not use for mapping a requirement to the operating controls that implement it, use controls-gap-pack instead; for what a regulatory change means for the organisation, use regulatory-change-impact-note. 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。
Reads one export transaction, order or shipment description and returns a DRAFT export review pack: parties to screen with a screening checklist, an item classification worksheet, a red-flag review, licence-determination questions and open items. Use when the user asks to "prepare the export review for this order", "pre-check this shipment for export control", "who do we need to screen on this deal", "build the classification worksheet for this item" or "assemble the trade-compliance file for this technology transfer". Do not use for vendor security or due-diligence screening of a supplier's questionnaire answers; use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead. Never classifies, screens, clears, decides licence need or releases a shipment; trade compliance does. 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。
Triages an incoming non-disclosure agreement against the organisation's written standard NDA positions and returns a DRAFT triage pack: a clause-by-clause deviations table with a severity band, a suggested response per clause quoted from the positions document, open questions and a governing-law flag, all for counsel to decide. Never gives legal advice or an acceptability call. Use when the user asks to "triage this NDA against our standard positions", "screen this confidentiality agreement before it goes to legal", "red-flag this mutual NDA", "first-pass the counterparty's NDA" or "is this NDA standard or does it need counsel". Do not use for a full review of an MSA, SOW, licence or any whole contract, use contract-review-pack instead; for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table. 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。
Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-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 set of knowledge files or a knowledge base listing and returns a draft hygiene table, one row per file: duplication signals with the matching file, staleness signals, conflicts between files on the same topic with both passages quoted, missing or unverified owners, and one proposed action per file (Keep, Update, Merge into, Retire, Assign owner, Confirm with owner) for the owner to decide. Never edits, merges, moves or deletes a file. Use when the user asks to "review our knowledge base for duplicates", "which KB articles are stale", "find conflicting articles", "which articles have no owner" or "run a hygiene check on these files". Do not use for review-date sweeps of a document library with owner reminders, use sharepoint-review-sweeper instead; for writing one article, use knowledge-article-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。
Turns an access export (accounts, entitlements, grant and last-used dates per system) into a draft access review pack, one section per system owner: who has what, since when, anomalies to confirm and the decision each line needs, with a blank column for the owner's decision. Never decides, revokes or rates access. Use when the user asks to "prepare the access review pack", "split this entitlement export by system owner", "who has access to what in this system", "build the recertification pack from this export" or "draft the access attestation for the owners". Do not use for a single request for a tool or access, use software-request-review 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。
Answers an employee's or manager's HR policy question strictly from the policy documents the user supplies or the agent can reach as knowledge: a DRAFT answer that quotes the governing clause with its document, version and clause reference, lists the conditions and exceptions the text states, returns UNKNOWN where the documents are silent and names the role to ask. Never invents a rule, fills a gap from general practice or decides an individual's case. Use when the user asks to check a policy, for example "what does the policy say about", "am I entitled to", "how many days of leave do I get", "what is the process for requesting", "does the handbook allow" or "which clause covers". Do not use for comparing two policy versions or briefing a change, use policy-change-briefing 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。