5,865 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Structured ideation methods: SCAMPER, Six Thinking Hats, Morphological Analysis, TRIZ, Biomimicry, plus more. Decision framework for picking methods by challenge type (stuck, improving, systematic exploration, contradiction). Use when generating research ideas or exploring interdisciplinary connections.
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 peer review of manuscripts and grants. 7-stage evaluation: initial assessment, section review, statistical rigor, reproducibility, figure integrity, ethics, writing. Covers CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA and report structure. For evidence quality see scientific-critical-thinking; scoring see scholar-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。
This skill should be used when the user needs to calculate consumption tax (消費税) or determine their tax method (2割特例, 簡易課税, or 本則課税). Trigger phrases include: "消費税を計算", "消費税の申告", "消費税申告書", "2割特例", "簡易課税", "本則課税", "課税売上", "消費税額", "インボイス", "みなし仕入率", "課税仕入".
Provides parameterized testing patterns with JUnit 5, generates data-driven unit tests using @ParameterizedTest, @ValueSource, @CsvSource, @MethodSource. Creates tests that run the same logic with multiple input values. Use when writing data-driven Java tests, multiple test cases from single method, or boundary value 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 after framing a question and before designing an analysis, or when choosing a method, judging whether a result is novel, or needing a prior effect size for a power calculation
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 find and fix performance problems in Shift's desktop app. Use when something is slow, choppy, janky, or laggy (scrubbing, dragging, editing, undo, opening fonts), when profiling or measuring, when adding or reviewing perf tests, and before claiming a change made something faster.
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。
Implement proven sales methodologies (MEDDIC, BANT, Sandler, Challenger, SPIN) across your team. Generate framework-specific questions, score deals, train reps, and enforce consistent qualification. Use when implementing or optimizing sales processes.
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 to test whether an AI agent, prompt, or skill actually works before or after it ships — build a small eval set, score runs, and catch regressions when the prompt or model changes. Trigger when the user asks whether a prompt is good, wants to compare models or versions, sees inconsistent agent output, or is about to put an agent in front of customers.
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。
Surface expert frameworks. Use when creating or evaluating skills, hooks, or 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。
Rigorously and honestly assess a NEW or proposed covariance / correlation / precision estimator, or a new covariance scoring rule, using precise. Use when someone proposes, asks to evaluate, or wants to compare a covariance methodology. Covers implementing it to the contract, conformance, benchmarking against the registry, out-of-sample validation, and statistically defensible inference.
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 whether an API request is correct based on provided inputs (method, URL, headers, body, auth, query params).
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。
Determines whether a personal data breach triggers notification obligations under GDPR Articles 33 and 34 using structured risk assessment methodology. Covers breach type classification (CIA triad), data sensitivity scoring, volume assessment, identifiability analysis, and consequence severity evaluation. References EDPB Guidelines 01/2021 with 18 breach scenarios. Keywords: breach risk assessment, GDPR, Article 33, Article 34, EDPB, notification threshold.
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 privacy audit sampling methodology including statistical and non-statistical sampling, sample size determination, stratification techniques, attribute sampling for compliance testing, confidence level selection, tolerable deviation rates, and extrapolation of results to the population. Keywords: audit sampling, statistical sampling, attribute testing, sample size, confidence level, stratified sampling, privacy audit.
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。
Researches an open-ended question — options, possible solutions, prior art, trade-offs, or how something works — and produces a durable, evidence-backed, adversarially-validated report that recommends an option without committing the team to any artifact. Use when you want to research approaches, weigh options, survey prior art or the state of the art, or understand how something works before committing to a direction. Does not diagnose a bug, failure, or root cause — use investigate. Does not specify a feature — use plan-a-feature. Does not create or update a coding standard — use coding-standard. Does not compare two concrete artifacts for gaps — use gap-analysis. Does not assess an existing module's architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback.
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。
Build work collaboratively in reviewable pieces, handing each piece back for review before starting the next, so the person stays in the lead and steers while the work happens instead of reviewing a finished result. Use when someone says to pair with them on something, asks to collaborate rather than direct, wants to review as it goes, or wants to guide the work piece by piece — on code, on a design decision, or on writing. For a test-first build it runs tdd, for restructuring it runs refactor, for an interface contract it runs design-an-api, and for plan work it runs iterative-plan-review or plan-implementation, each collaboratively; invoke any of those directly instead to run it straight through without pausing. Does not pace someone through code that already exists and builds nothing — use code-walkthrough. Does not explain, summarize, or research something instead of producing it — use code-overview or research.
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 whether a repository's coding-agent harness can reliably carry work from intent through controlled execution, verification, delivery, and learning. Use when asked to assess agent readiness, repeated agent failures, Rules/Skills/Hooks/Memory effectiveness, missing validation or recovery loops, or whether a harness repair improved later outcomes. Do not use for code-only audits, AGENTS-only audits, individual skill reliability reviews, or executing the task itself.
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。
Fix "ref.listen can only be used within the build method of a ConsumerWidget" assertion error in Flutter Riverpod 3.x. Use when: (1) ConsumerStatefulWidget crashes with "Failed assertion: line 492 pos 7: 'debugDoingBuild'" in flutter_riverpod consumer.dart, (2) ref.listen is called inside initState, addPostFrameCallback, or any lifecycle method other than build(), (3) All widget tests fail with this assertion from scheduler callback. Applies to flutter_riverpod 3.0+ with ConsumerStatefulWidget.
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。
Incrementally implement new features in Java repositories from natural language descriptions. Use when adding functionality to existing Java codebases (Maven or Gradle projects). Takes a feature description as input and outputs modified repository with implementation code, corresponding JUnit tests, and verification that all tests pass. Supports method additions, new class creation, and method modifications with proper Java conventions.
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 Java test classes and methods to work with new code versions after refactoring or modifications. Use when code changes break existing tests due to signature changes, refactoring, or behavior modifications. Takes old and new code versions plus old tests as input, and outputs updated tests that compile and pass against the new code. Handles method signature changes, class refactoring, assertion updates, and mock modifications.
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 complete partial code snippets while satisfying semantic constraints including variable types, invariants, pre/post-conditions, interface contracts, and expected input/output behavior. Use when users provide incomplete code with specific requirements like "complete this function that takes a list and returns sorted unique elements" or "fill in this method body that must maintain the invariant that x stays positive" or "implement this interface method with these type constraints." Produces compilable, executable code with tests and a constraint satisfaction 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。
Run a cumulative daily or retrospective sweep of research papers on a chosen topic, audit their claims, methods, integrity signals, and independent support, then identify overlooked but feasible project or business opportunities in a detailed source-grounded report. Use when asked to monitor papers every day, mine buried research, evaluate whether a paper is credible or reproducible, find unimplemented research ideas, or separate promising work from hype, weak evidence, and retracted or contradicted results.
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 the big picture around a topic or software repository by identifying its boundaries, layers, actors, components, relationships, flows, history, fault lines, and open questions, then explain how the pieces fit together and where to look next. Use when a user asks to understand a whole field, domain, technology, ecosystem, industry, codebase, architecture, unfamiliar repo, or phrases such as "give me the big picture", "map the landscape", "how does this all fit together?", "help me get oriented", or "what am I missing?"
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。