708 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when creating Product Hunt launch carousel images for developer tools, AI tools, open-source projects, GitHub launches, or technical products. Research comparable launches, inspect the project, extract verified proof points, then generate 4-5 launch-ready images with consistent branding, product surfaces, readable copy, and source-grounded claims.
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 about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
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。
Phase 4 Turn 1 of disease-market-sizing-orchestration. Generates report HTML with mandatory citation anchors per fact claim. Reads contract + staging + sources/. Every drug/treatment/stat/recommendation MUST carry [pmid:.../guideline:.../nct:...] anchor that resolves to an actual file in sources/. NEVER hardcode drug names or numerical claims. Use AFTER evidence recall (phase 3), BEFORE content-verification-layer (Turn 2).
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-grounded AI research workflow for turning supplied economics, finance, management, and social-science papers or structured records into versioned PaperReading artifacts. Use when Codex must ingest text, Markdown, or a text-based PDF; separate source-grounded claims from researcher analysis; bind findings to evidence IDs and locators; review extraction candidates; migrate v0.2 PaperRecord JSON; validate or verify a v0.3 PaperPackage; generate research extensions; export reviewable JSON or Markdown; or safely update a compatible 13-field literature workbook.
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。
How to actually run every kind of test in nuxt-crouton (unit/e2e/typecheck/lint, verified commands) plus the HONEST coverage picture — which packages have real tests vs zero, the dormant skipped/todo cases behind three mocking walls, and what CI truly gates vs what CLAUDE.md claims. Use when asked "how do I run the tests", "is X covered by tests", "what does CI actually check", "why is this suite skipped", "where do I add a test", or before trusting a green build as evidence that something works.
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。
Draws an interactive HTML Architecture Viewer for any code flow the user names. Walks through seven research-driven steps (flow, name, repo research, lens colors, evidence flags, lens+mechanism per stop, build) and verifies links, claims, and generated artifacts before delivery.
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。
Research and stress-test open-source project names, from collision checks to launch-ready decisions. Use when the user asks to name or rename a project, compare candidate names, screen GitHub or package namespace risk, verify language or mythology claims, or improve SEO/GEO clarity. Perform live web and registry research, separate brand from category descriptor, classify collisions, and return one evidence-backed recommendation.
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。
Conduct reproducible web searches and decision-oriented research across official sites, search engines, news, papers, forums, social platforms, and public datasets. Use when Codex must investigate a person, organization, product, market, technical resource, reputation, career choice, or other current topic; compare candidates; verify claims; collect dated citations; distinguish facts from inference and anecdote; or write an evidence-backed research report.
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。
Debug and troubleshoot WorkOS AuthKit authentication issues with Convex. Use when authentication fails, JWT validation errors occur, user identity returns null, email claims are missing, admin access checks fail, or sign in button does not work. Supports Netlify deployment.
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。
Debug and troubleshoot WorkOS AuthKit authentication issues with Convex. Use when authentication fails, JWT validation errors occur, user identity returns null, email claims are missing, admin access checks fail, or sign in button does not work. Supports Netlify deployment.
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。
Judge performance or resource claims on real hardware: benchmark design or review, latency, throughput, memory or headroom numbers, and accept-or-reject decisions on optimizations. Not for refactors with no resource claim.
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。
Write the document of a research run — plan the question and the outline with rs_plan, write prose and declare its claims together with rs_write, choose the claim strength the evidence actually holds, follow the section structure the run's kind maps to, read the draft back, and build a watermarked draft before the gated clean build. Use when a run's document has to be written, a section drafted, a claim bound to a source, or a build attempted.
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。
Review or update stable, canonical, any-human, PMF, and adoption claims using adoption/canonicity governance packets.
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。
Load for authentication or authorization changes involving BFF cookies/tokens, JWT validation, claims/user ID extraction, policies, handler access checks, impersonation, or 401/403 bugs; not for UI affordance gating alone.
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 NASA System Safety Handbook Volume 2 (NASA/SP-2014-612). Use for risk-informed safety cases (RISC), integrated safety analysis (ISA), adequate safety concepts, safety objectives and requirements, acquirer/provider roles, graded safety analysis, claims-evidence-argument structure, SSMP development, and RISC evaluation. Does not cover nuclear or chemical safety domains, occupational health regulations, or NASA-specific programmatic requirements beyond system safety.
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 sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-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。
Drafts a DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。
Maps every proposed P&ID object from an accepted enrichment draft to the generic family, catalogue class and required attributes the project's intelligent P&ID authoring tool would need, as a readiness table with UNKNOWN wherever the project catalogue extract is not provided, plus connectivity readiness per line and a numbered list of import blockers. Mapping only: it never writes to the tool, never produces an import file and never claims a class exists in the catalogue. Use when the user asks to "build the readiness map", "show how far the draft is from a sandbox import", "list what would block the import", "map the objects to the tool catalogue" or "check attribute readiness against the catalogue extract" after gate G3. Do not use for validating the discipline sections or assembling the review package, use validation-and-review-package 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。
Synthesises a batch of customer feedback (survey answers, reviews, ticket and chat comments) into a DRAFT themed report: coded themes with record counts and shares, anonymised verbatim quotes cited to record codes, contradictions and unverified claims, and the follow-up questions to answer next. Produces no sentiment score or percentage positive as fact; ratings appear only as distributions with n. Use when the user asks to "theme this feedback", "what are customers saying", "summarise these survey answers", "analyse these reviews", "find the top complaints in these comments" or "code this voice of the customer data". Do not use for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis instead; for sorting a live queue and drafting replies, use ticket-triage-pack; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis. 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 an architecture or design decision record (ADR) from the discussion notes, design review minutes, chat threads and diagram descriptions the user provides: context, decision drivers, options considered with arguments as stated, the decision as the group worded it, consequences and a review date, with every factual claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so unsupported claims are marked for the author to substantiate. Use when the user asks to "write an ADR", "document the architecture decision", "record why we chose this design", "turn these design review notes into a decision record" or "draft the design decision log entry". Do not use for a business or governance decision with no technical design, use decision-memo-builder instead; for the change ticket that implements the decision, use change-request-pack. 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。
Verifies truthfulness, accuracy, and link integrity of content before publishing. Catches fabricated statistics, dead URLs, misattributed sources, and company claims that contradict the brand DNA.
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。
Plan browser, app, screenshot, or UI checks before visual claims. Use when a task includes app shots, visual QA, generated assets, or runtime UI proof.
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。
Audit, grade, rewrite, and issue funny evidence-backed tickets for generic AI-slop patterns in prose, social posts, UI/design, and code. Use when asked to de-slop writing, humanize AI copy, grade a draft, review a landing page or generated interface, remove vague claims and repetitive rhetoric, inspect AI-written code for generic abstractions and happy-path-only logic, or ticket someone for a specific quality offense. Do not use to determine whether AI authored something.
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 before responding to pressure for agreement, manufactured urgency, authority appeals, or requests to certify unsupported claims; separate evidence from persuasion and state uncertainty.
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。