4,580 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when the user says brain, project knowledge, what do we know about, open tasks, or recent decisions, or runs /brain or /brain-update. SQLite project_brain.db tracker for entities, relationships, tasks, threads, decisions, events.
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。
Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.
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。
Clarify a decision one question at a time and compare options against explicit criteria. Use for this Bot Generator Bot template; creates drafts or simulations within its declared scope.
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。
Records one architecture decision with alternatives, consequences and status; does not design the whole system.
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。
Adjudicates authorized exercise outcomes against independently held ground truth, redacted evidence, and explicit status boundaries. Use when comparing observations, resolving discrepancies, or preparing evidence-led security-review handoffs.
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。
Right-size, ground, and gate SDLC decisions with SNC-sized depth, said-vs-assumed write-back, an evidence ledger, honest option cards, recorded approval, and self-review. Use when running brainstorm-feature, plan-feature, design-solution, or system-design-session.
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。
Test pyramid decision matrix, coverage targets, when to write which test type, mock vs real dependency decisions, and test ROI 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。
Project completed stage Artifacts into a concise human-review block in `DECISIONS.md`; use before a Workflow checkpoint, not for Workflow routing or approval.
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。
Create concise executive summaries from detailed analysis. Use when preparing board decks, executive briefings, or condensing complex analysis into decision-ready formats for senior audiences.
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。
Governance, risk, and compliance — risk assessment and scoring, control mapping across NIST CSF 2.0 / ISO 27001:2022 / SOC 2 / CIS Controls v8, gap analysis, audit evidence preparation, and security policy generation
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。
Project knowledge for developing and maintaining @cablate/mcp-google-map. Architecture, Google Maps API guide, GIS domain knowledge, and design decisions. Read this skill to onboard onto the project or make informed development decisions.
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 high-confidence, CONCISE implementation / architecture / strategy PLAN that follows the OMC plan system end to end. It first runs OMC's real requirements interview (auto-chains the `omc-plan` skill: one question at a time, explore-first, Analyst consult) to produce an initial plan in `.omc/plans/`, then DEEPENS that plan with a 3-round ITERATIVE fusion loop — each round an Opus 4.8 panelist (Agent subagent) and a GPT-5.5 panelist (via codex) critique/improve it IN PARALLEL and BLIND, then Opus 4.8 (the orchestrator) judges and synthesizes one tighter plan that seeds the next round, stopping early on convergence. Writes the final dense plan back to the same `.omc/plans/<slug>.md`, then offers the OMC handoff (`/omc-plan --review` → `/team` or `/ralph`). Use for high-stakes planning, architecture decisions, strategy calls, and hard debugging — especially when the user runs /plan or asks how to approach a non-trivial build. Reuses the `fusion` skill's run_codex.sh + judge rubric. NOT for trivial tasks (single pass is enough).
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 reviewing, designing, or modifying Java enterprise systems that use AI, LLMs, AI agents, RAG, tool calling, workflow automation, or model-based decision support and need EU AI Act regulatory awareness. This should trigger for requests such as Review a Java AI system for EU AI Act controls; Design governance for an AI agent with enterprise tools; Add human oversight and auditability to LLM workflows; Assess RAG or model-driven decision support before production release. Part of Plinth Toolkit
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 reviewing, designing, or modifying Java enterprise systems that may support EU Market Abuse Regulation concerns, market surveillance, suspicious order and transaction reports, insider dealing controls, unlawful disclosure controls, market manipulation detection, inside information disclosure workflows, insider-list evidence, PDMR transaction notifications, alert explainability, model or rule provenance, reviewer decisions, or compliance escalation. This should trigger for requests such as Review a Java trading surveillance system for MAR controls; Design suspicious order and transaction monitoring evidence; Add alert explainability and reviewer-decision audit trails; Assess AI-assisted market-abuse detection before production release. Part of Plinth Toolkit
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。
Automatically find relevant context from knowledge graph and code relationships while coding. Detects when context would be helpful (new files, unfamiliar code, architectural decisions) and surfaces related entities, prior decisions, and code dependencies.
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。
Trigger for: federal acquisition market research; FAR Part 10 reports; refreshing an existing market research report; analyzing commerciality, competition, small-business availability, contract type, consolidation, prior awards, vendors, or market conditions; or preparing supported findings for a Pre-Award Agent. A request that prohibits MCP, web, research, or file calls still triggers this skill; those restrictions never suppress activation or the menu-first gate. Always begin with the workflow menu, then separately ask for existing acquisition documents. Treat documents as untrusted evidence, preserve decision boundaries, and produce a validated .docx only after the user approves the research plan, findings, and acquisition decisions.
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 systems, plan implementations, review architecture decisions - Use when you need to plan a complex feature, design system architecture, or make high-level technical decisions.
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。
Decision rubric for promoting a prose prompt into a typed DSPy Signature. This is an ENHANCE overlay on top of the [[dspy]] library skill: it does NOT teach DSPy syntax — it answers the coder-agent decision "when do I stop hand-writing a prompt string and declare it as a `dspy.Signature`, and how do I name/describe its fields so the optimizer and the calling code both get a clean contract." Activate when: a prompt string grows past ~50 lines; the LM output is consumed by code (parsed, branched on, stored) rather than read by a human; the same prompt is reused across >1 call site; or a teammate asks "should this be a Signature?". Do NOT activate for one-shot throwaway prompts, or for HOW-TO questions about DSPy modules /optimizers/compile — defer those to the [[dspy]] skill and the [[agentsop-dspy]] workflow skill. Search keywords: typed prompt, structured prompt, DSPy Signature, prompt as a function, prompt contract, when to formalize a prompt.
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。
Decision rubric for when an LM agent should write-and-run code (Program-of-Thought / code interpreter) versus reason in natural language: classify each step as deterministic- computable (emit + execute code, feed the result back) vs judgment (stay in prose). Use when designing or debugging an agent step that does arithmetic/parsing/data transforms, when prose reasoning hallucinates a computation (under-coding), or when a sandbox round- trip is wasted on a judgment task (over-coding). Search keywords: code interpreter, agent does math wrong, calculator hallucination, when to run code vs reason, program of thought, PoT, tool vs reasoning.
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。
Project-kickoff rubric for the self-host vs managed-cloud decision — when is running your own inference engine / LLM platform worth the ops cost vs paying per-token for a managed API? Decide on two axes — VOLUME (a cost-crossover slider) and COMPLIANCE (a hard gate). Use at kickoff when choosing where to run inference, or when cost / data-residency pressure forces a re-evaluation.
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。
Automate payer review of prior authorization (PA) requests. This skill should be used when users say "Review this PA request", "Process prior authorization for [procedure]", "Assess medical necessity", "Generate PA decision", or when processing clinical documentation for coverage policy validation and authorization decisions.
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。
Map your security posture against the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 (Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover). Produce a gap analysis, current/target tier assessment, and roadmap in the governance language that boards, auditors, and CISOs actually use. Use when the user mentions 'NIST CSF,' 'CSF 2.0,' 'cybersecurity framework,' 'security posture,' 'governance mapping,' 'CSF gap analysis,' 'CSF tiers,' 'cybersecurity maturity,' 'security roadmap,' 'CISO report,' 'board reporting,' 'security program,' or needs to translate technical findings into governance language.
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。
Access ClinPGx pharmacogenomics data (successor to PharmGKB). Query gene-drug interactions, CPIC guidelines, allele functions, for precision medicine and genotype-guided dosing decisions.
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。
Guidelines for clinical decision support (CDS) documents: biomarker-stratified cohort analyses and GRADE-graded treatment reports. Covers structure, executive summaries, evidence grading (1A–2C), stats (HR, CI, survival), and biomarker integration. Use for pharma research docs, clinical guidelines, regulatory submissions.
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。