「implement」の検索結果

Perform cross-artifact consistency analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md. Use after task generation to identify gaps, duplications, and inconsistencies before implementation.

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。

Break down implementation plans into actionable task lists. Use after planning to create a structured task breakdown. Generates tasks.md with ordered, dependency-aware tasks.

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。

Generate custom quality checklists for validating requirements completeness and clarity. Use to create unit tests for English that ensure spec quality before implementation.

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 support investigation as a suggest-and-interpret loop, never executing anything yourself — orient to the product's support pack and follow the signal with judgment. Use when someone asks for help triaging, investigating, or resolving an operational or support issue on a deployment. Not for feature-development cards (see investigate-and-fix and implement-this).

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 the product engineer's post-implementation testing notes for how thoroughly they cover the card's requirements and risk, and whether regression-worthy cases are automated at the right level of the test hierarchy

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 implementation for common security vulnerabilities

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。

Start a working doc — a drafting space where spec-level and implementation thinking co-exist before splitting into specs, plan, and test cases

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 this card's mockups or implementation against the design library

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。

Integrate Honcho memory and social cognition into existing Python or TypeScript codebases. Use when adding Honcho SDK, setting up peers, configuring sessions, implementing the dialectic chat endpoint for AI agents, or wiring Honcho into bot frameworks (nanobot, openclaw, picoclaw, etc).

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。

Formally verify programs by writing Lean 4 proofs. Trigger this skill whenever the user wants to formally verify code, generate Lean 4 proofs, prove properties about algorithms or smart contracts, verify invariants, convert program logic into formal specifications, or anything involving Lean 4 and formal verification. Also trigger when the user mentions "qedgen", "lean proof", "formal proof", "verify my code", "prove correctness", "formal verification", or wants mathematical guarantees about their implementation.

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。

Secure Solana wallet generation using official Solana Labs libraries — Ed25519 keypairs, memory zeroization, vanity address generation, offline-only operation, and multi-language implementations (Rust, TypeScript, Bash).

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。

Fetch GitHub issues, spawn sub-agents to implement fixes and open PRs, then monitor and address PR review comments. Usage: /gh-issues [owner/repo] [--label bug] [--limit 5] [--milestone v1.0] [--assignee @me] [--fork user/repo] [--watch] [--interval 5] [--reviews-only] [--cron] [--dry-run] [--model glm-5] [--notify-channel -1002381931352]

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 working with VueUse composables - provides reactive utilities for state, browser APIs, sensors, network, animations. Check VueUse before writing custom composables - most patterns already implemented.

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。

Redesign GitHub README homepages or create project-native pure SVG, hybrid SVG-composed PNG/WebP, and opt-in animated GIF assets. Use when a user asks to beautify, redesign, rebrand, visually upgrade, simplify, or audit a GitHub README; create only a hero, section headers, diagrams, badges, motion graphics, showcase modules, or other README assets; or turn a repository homepage into a cohesive visual story. If whole-README work versus asset-only work is unclear, ask which scope the user wants. For hero-like assets where pure SVG and generated raster material are both viable, explain the tradeoffs and confirm the implementation before creating the asset.

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。

Integration review of stable code: a review note and a fix list, no implementation. Use before shipping.

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。

Synthesises retrospective notes, closing reports and post-implementation reviews into a DRAFT lessons-learned document: themed lessons with source counts, anonymised quoted evidence graded by strength, repeats against a prior register, contradictions, and a recommended owner with a stated basis for each follow-up. Names no individual or vendor and assigns no blame. Use when the user asks to "compile the lessons learned", "write up the retrospective", "theme the close-out notes", "what did we learn across these projects" or "refresh the lessons register". Do not use for a single sprint's review, use sprint-review-summary instead; for an incident investigation, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for customer feedback themes, use customer-feedback-theme-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。

Prepares a change request pack (description and justification, scope, schedule, implementation plan, risk as stated, rollback, test evidence as provided, communications, approvals route) from an engineer's notes, ticket or pull request description, with UNKNOWN for anything not provided and a question list for the engineer. Never rates risk or marks a change tested or approved. Use when the user asks to "write the change request for this", "fill in the change ticket from my notes", "prepare the CAB submission" or "turn this pull request into an RFC". Do not use for the step-by-step procedure with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for release notes describing what shipped, use release-notes-writer. 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。

Tutor the user step by step on a plan, implementation, codebase, or topic to pay down understanding debt left by AI tooling. Explicit invocation only.

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。

Quiz the user on a plan, implementation, or codebase to pay down understanding debt left by AI tooling. Explicit invocation only.

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。

Resolve complex or high-impact problems when the cause, solution path, requirements, or proof boundary is genuinely uncertain. Use when work needs evidence-led diagnosis, consequential design or implementation, or a completion audit; do not trigger merely because work has multiple steps, or for simple facts, fully specified routine changes, or pure creative 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。

Takes existing content markdown files and builds production-final resource center pages on client websites using their existing tech stack and design system. Output is live-ready — no review pass, no placeholder content, no prototype styling. Implements hub pages, section listings, article pages, and cross-linking for Blog, Guides, Learn, and Comparisons sections.

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。

Prose final-pass editor for GitHub issue bodies, pull request bodies, release notes, README/docs changes, public comments, and user-facing explanations. Use when Codex drafts or revises substantial prose that will be published or committed, especially when the user asks to polish, de-slop, make it less AI-written, improve a PR/issue body, or prepare docs text; do not use for ordinary code implementation, debugging transcripts, logs, quoted text, command output, API names, or Chinese conversational replies unless explicitly requested.

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。