「cause」の検索結果

Review any client-facing message or material (emails, letters, newsletters, social posts, website copy, presentations, performance reports, proposals) for compliance with SEC rules that govern investment advisers — the Marketing Rule (206(4)-1), fiduciary duty / antifraud provisions (206), Books and Records (204-2), and Reg BI where broker-dealer activity applies. Produces a pass/flag/fail markup, required disclosures, a books-and-records scratch-pad entry, and an archiving handoff reminder. Triggers on "compliance check", "/compliance", "is this compliant", "review this before I send it", "can I say this to a client", "check this email/post/deck". Use it whenever an advisor asks to check, review, or look over anything before it goes to a client or prospect — "check this before I send it", "look this over before it goes out" — even a routine note, because deciding that a message needs no changes is part of the review, not a reason to skip 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。

Compact reference for the Hyperliquid API as the desk uses it - endpoints and envelopes, every /info request type, every /exchange action with its signing scheme, order and status vocabularies, asset ids, tick and lot rules, rate limits, WebSocket subscription list, error strings, and where the official docs are. Use to look up an exact field, request type or limit before writing a call, and to map an error string to its cause.

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。

Splits a coding task into independent parallel agent workstreams with disjoint write sets, explicit inputs and outputs, dependency ordering, and a merge/review plan. Use when several subtasks can proceed without shared mutable state. Not for tightly coupled edits, one failing root cause, or parallel changes to the same files.

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。

Validates a running application, CLI, API, service, or generated artifact as a user or operator against a prewritten observable behavior contract while remaining source-blind. Use for acceptance checks, runtime proof, anti-fake probes, release smoke tests, or an independent companion to code review. Not for source-quality findings, root-cause diagnosis, or visual design judgment outside the contract.

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 or reviews HTTP, REST, GraphQL, RPC, CLI, webhook, event, and service interfaces with explicit inputs, outputs, errors, compatibility, idempotency, pagination, authentication, versioning, and observability. Use when introducing or changing an API or cross-component contract. Not for internal implementation details with no boundary or for debugging one API failure; use root-cause-debugging there.

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。

Verifies a completion, fix, passing, compatibility, release, or readiness claim with fresh task-specific evidence mapped to the actual requirements. Use before saying a change is done, before merge, after review fixes, and at release gates. Not a substitute for diagnosing the cause of a failing check.

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。

Executes an approved implementation plan through fresh implementer and reviewer agents for each task, with explicit handoffs, focused tests, and task-by-task integration. Use for multi-task work where independent agent context improves implementation and review quality. Not for a single small edit, an unresolved design, or a failure that still needs root-cause analysis.

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 this skill when the user wants intellectual understanding — learning how or why something works, not getting a task done or soliciting Claude's judgment. Trigger for: - Explicit learning requests: teach, explain, ELI5, walk me through, quiz me, flashcards, "I'm rusty on"; definitions ("what is X") - Terse concept names implying "help me understand this": "Galois theory," "transformers, from scratch" - Confusion signals: "won't stick," "keep mixing these up," "not getting it" - Learning-path questions: prerequisites, sequencing, what to study before X - Conceptual questions about mechanisms, causes, or dynamics Don't trigger for: - Tasks: coding, writing, calculation, translation, factual lookup, news updates - Personal troubleshooting; resource/textbook recommendations - Claude's evaluative verdict: opinion prompts ("do you think X", "settle this", "honest take", "is X dead / still taken seriously") and interpretive takes ("was X really as harsh as people say")

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。

Build/install/launch proof, ANR/jank/memory triage, and stale-build debugging for native Android apps. Use when runtime truth, performance, or crash root cause is in doubt.

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。

Investigate and remediate data quality alerts using Monte Carlo MCP tools. Runs root cause analysis, assesses blast radius, discovers available tools (MCP/CLI/API), proposes and executes fixes, or escalates with full context when uncertain.

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。

Orchestrate incident response — triage, root cause, remediate, prevent recurrence. USE WHEN active alerts, data broken, stale, pipeline failure, or investigate and fix a data incident.

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。

Troubleshoots Monte Carlo AI agent alerts and traces — eval score drops, latency/token spikes, trajectory and validation breaches. Not for data incidents (monte-carlo-analyze-root-cause) or monitor creation (monte-carlo-monitoring-advisor).

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。

Diagnoses pipeline performance issues -- slow jobs, expensive queries, latency trends -- using Monte Carlo's cross-platform observability. Uses a tiered investigation approach: discover problems, bridge to affected tables, then drill into root causes. Activates when a user asks about slow pipelines, expensive queries, or performance regressions.

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。

When something breaks in production: triage the severity, gather evidence, identify root cause, deploy a fix or mitigation, and write a post-mortem. Provides a calm, structured process for high-stress moments.

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 this skill whenever you learn something important during a conversation: a key architectural decision, a project-specific convention, a bug root-cause, a 3rd-party API quirk, or any fact that would help a future agent avoid re-doing the same research. Writes structured entries to the project's knowledge base so that context persists across conversations and agents.

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。

Investigating git history, analyzing regression root causes, and performing code archaeology. Time-travels through commits to uncover truth. Use for git history investigation.

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。

Investigating bugs via root cause analysis, reproduction steps, and impact assessment. Investigation-only — finds why bugs occur and where to fix them, no code. Use when a bug needs RCA before a fix.

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。

Search and manage hyperedges — n-ary relationships between memories. Use for swarm membership, multi-cause incidents, or any "this involves all of (A, B, C, D)" relationship that doesn't fit a binary edge.

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。

Walk the causal graph in AgentDB to explain why two memories are connected, or trace a root cause. Use when the user asks "why did X happen", "what led to Y", or after an incident.

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。

Reshape source-locked mesh boundaries so the geometry fits texture-atlas or decal contours 1:1 before final UV/material work. Use when textures look off because the model behind them does not match the source texture region, or when the mesh must adapt to the texture instead of stretching the texture onto an approximate mesh.

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。

Work a defect back to its cause before changing anything, and close it with a regression test. Use when a claimed task's criterion names a defect in a repository with a .ank/ directory.

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。

Systematic debugging with root cause investigation. (gstack)

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。

Design an error analysis protocol to diagnose the root cause of student mistakes and misconceptions. Use when error patterns appear in student work and targeted feedback is needed.

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。

A harness that makes Opus (or any Claude model) behave like Fable — it enforces seeing a task through to the end, with evidence and verification, as procedure. Use when starting a multi-step task (2+ sequential stories), long autonomous work, debugging or root-cause investigation, building render/executable artifacts (HTML, SVG, games, charts), or when the user says "fablize", "see it through", "verify as you go", "split into goals".

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。