3,477 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) development patterns. Drug interaction checking, dose validation, clinical scoring (NEWS2, qSOFA), alert severity classification, and integration into EMR workflows. Use when building clinical decision support — drug interaction checks, dose validation, clinical scoring, or alert severity.
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。
Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system design.
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。
Mint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate 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。
新しいプロジェクトまたは既存リポジトリに Claude 用の kickoff 文脈を導入するスキル。 テンプレートとリポジトリ証跡、ユーザー入力をもとに `CLAUDE.md`、`docs/PROJECT_BRIEF.md`、 `docs/SKILL_ROUTING.md`、`docs/QUALITY_GATES.md`、`docs/TEST_STRATEGY.md`、 `docs/DECISION_LOG.md`、`docs/HIDDEN_CONTRACT_REGISTER.md`、 `docs/CROSS_MODULE_CONSISTENCY_MATRIX.md`、`.claude/rules/*`、 `.claude/commands/project-kickoff.md` を必要に応じて作成・更新する。 Use when starting a new project, retrofitting AI project context into an existing repository, bootstrapping Claude memory, or standardizing kickoff documents, rules, and slash-command scaffolding. Distinct from project-manager / project-plan-creator (which plan work), and from completion-quality-gate-designer / hidden-contract-investigator / safe-by-default-architect / cross-module-consistency-auditor / production-parity-test-designer (which deeply refine individual artifacts after bootstrap).
Prepare comprehensive meeting assets including agendas, reference materials, decision logs, and action items. Use when user says "prepare meeting", "create agenda", "meeting prep", "会議準備", or needs bilingual (Japanese/English) meeting documentation for cross-regional teams. Triggers include requests for decision log templates, action item tracking, or compiling reference materials from project estimates and specs.
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。
Fableクラスの思考プロセスを任意のモデルで再現する思考スキャフォールド。問いの再構築、 前提の検証、選択肢空間の展開、反証、確信度つきの収束という順序をフェーズとゲートで強制する。 設計判断・技術選定・調査・分析・提案など、結論を間違えるコストが高い非自明なタスクで使用。 「深く考えて」「幅広い視野で」「多角的に検討して」「Fableのように考えて」がトリガー。 Use when asked to think deeply, consider all angles, or for high-stakes decisions and analyses.
Relentless one-question-at-a-time interview (tappable options with a recommended answer) that sharpens a requirement, business plan, project plan, proposal, or raw idea through conversation, then writes it up as a brief with a glossary and decision log. Use whenever the user wants their thinking stress-tested or pinned down before acting — trigger phrases include "grill me", "grill this", "詰めて", "詰めたい", "壁打ち", "要件を固めたい", "企画を練りたい", "計画を整理したい", "アイデアをぶつけたい", "突っ込んで", "clarify", "質問して", "何が決まってないか教えて", or when the user describes a plan/idea vaguely and asks what to do next. Do NOT use for reviewing a finished document (use a document-review skill) or when the user just wants an answer, not questions.
Show what this repository has already decided about its vulnerabilities, read from the durable record rather than by scanning again — open versus resolved, the decision taken on each, and what is still waiting. Use when picking up triage after a break, auditing past decisions, onboarding to a repository with security history, or checking nothing high-severity is open before a release.
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 OpenVEX / CycloneDX VEX attestations from `.vulnetix/memory.yaml` triage decisions, optionally sign with cosign, optionally upload to Vulnetix and post to a GitHub PR. Use when documenting triage decisions for supply-chain consumers, attaching VEX to a CycloneDX SBOM, or satisfying customer attestation requests.
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。
Post-launch review of a shipped PRD against the brief's success metrics. Did we move the metric? What did the data actually show? Which assumptions held, which broke? Which accepted-gap decisions resolved (confirmed vs. invalidated)? What would we do differently? Triggers on "outcome review", "did it work", "post-launch review", "did we move the metric", "retro the feature", "was it worth it". Produces a Confluence outcome-review page and updates the brief + linked 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。
METAINFORMANT rules for directory src/metainformant/math/decision_theory. Use when editing, adding tests, or reviewing code under this path. Read the linked AGENTS.md first; use uv only, write outputs to output/, real implementations.
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 the FAA Systems Engineering Manual (SEM) v1.0.1. Use for civil-agency systems engineering as the FAA practices it inside the Acquisition Management System (AMS) and the National Airspace System (NAS): the five-phase AMS lifecycle and its decision points; operational concept development and implementation-free functional analysis (ConOps, FFBD/N², CMLs); requirements analysis and architectural design synthesis (PRS→MRS, the PRD ratchet pPRD→iPRD→fPRD, RAM, ISEF/DoDAF views, CPRs); the seven technical management disciplines (Integrated Technical Management/SEMP, Interface Management/IRD-ICD, Risk-Issue-Opportunity, Configuration Management, SE Information Management, Decision Analysis, Verification & Validation); and the specialty disciplines (RMA via Service Threads/STLSC, Life Cycle Engineering, E3/Spectrum, Human Factors, Information Security via the NIST RMF, System Safety via the SMS, and Hazardous Materials/Environmental/EOSH). Scope limits: this is FAA-specific guidance, not policy — it is a tailorable menu that points outward to companion handbooks (FAA-HDBK-006A for RMA, the SMS Manual, the NIST 800-series) rather than restating generic SE theory; it is thin on detailed cost estimating, contracting/FAR law, software-development methodology, named anti-pattern catalogues, and any non-FAA or non-civil-aviation lifecycle. Source has no page numbers in the extracted text (~360 pp.).
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 the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev 2). Use for NASA's systems-engineering process model — the SE Engine and 17 common technical processes, the program/project life cycle (Pre-Phase A through F), Key Decision Points and technical reviews (MCR/SRR/PDR/CDR/…), stakeholder expectations, technical requirements, design solution, product verification and validation, and crosscutting technical management (planning, risk, configuration, interfaces, data, assessment, decision analysis). Strong for aerospace/spaceflight project SE and lifecycle gating; NASA-specific terminology (KDPs, NPR 7123.1).
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 a schedule extract (milestone list or planning tool export) and the period's status notes into a DRAFT plain-language slip explanation: which milestones and activities slipped and by how many working days, arithmetic shown, why per the notes as verbatim fragments with source and date, what each slip pushes next per the extract, and the decision each slip needs framed as a question with the options the notes propose and the owner the governance documents name, every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "explain the schedule slip", "what slipped this month and why", "write the schedule commentary for the steering pack", "put the delay in plain language for the sponsor" or "what decisions do these slips need". Do not use for the weekly status report, use project-status-tracker instead; for cost variances, use budget-variance-explainer; for one sprint's carry-over, use sprint-review-summary. 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。
Produces a DRAFT product requirements document from the discovery notes, interview summaries, support themes, analytics notes and stakeholder messages the user provides: problem statement, target users, goals with measures as stated, numbered requirements each with a testable acceptance criterion, non-goals, constraints, dependencies and open questions, with every statement tagged evidenced, assumed or UNKNOWN so each assumption is visible for the product owner to confirm. Use when the user asks to "write a PRD", "draft the product requirements", "turn these discovery notes into requirements", "document what this feature needs to do" or "build the requirements doc for this epic". Do not use for supplier-facing requirements in a tender, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for the change ticket that ships the work, 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。
Maintains four living project files (overview and progress log, decision log, RAID log, links) from the mail, channel posts, documents and meeting notes the user attaches or the agent can reach, returns each touched file complete in the chat for the user to save, and builds a weekly DRAFT status report from those files. Use when the user asks to "set up tracking for project X", "catch the project files up", "log this decision against the project", "add this risk to the RAID log", "save this link to the project" or "write this week's status report". Do not use for reviewing an existing RAID log for stale or ownerless entries, use raid-log-review instead; for an HTML status page, use project-dashboard-builder; for minutes of one meeting, use meeting-minutes-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。
Reviews a RAID log (risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies) line by line and returns a DRAFT review pack: which entries are stale, overdue, duplicated, ownerless, incomplete or misfiled, why, and a proposed update per line as current text against proposed text with the decision the project manager must take. Never re-rates, closes, merges or edits the log. Use when the user asks to "review the RAID log", "clean up the risk log", "health-check the RAID log before the steering meeting", "which risks are stale", "find duplicate risks" or "refresh the issue log". Do not use for setting up a new RAID log or logging a single new risk, issue or decision, use project-status-tracker 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。
Reviews one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. 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。
Turns an access export (accounts, entitlements, grant and last-used dates per system) into a draft access review pack, one section per system owner: who has what, since when, anomalies to confirm and the decision each line needs, with a blank column for the owner's decision. Never decides, revokes or rates access. Use when the user asks to "prepare the access review pack", "split this entitlement export by system owner", "who has access to what in this system", "build the recertification pack from this export" or "draft the access attestation for the owners". Do not use for a single request for a tool or access, use software-request-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。
Builds a self-contained single-file HTML project dashboard (status banner, milestones table, risks heat list, decisions log, links) from the project tracker files the user attaches, pastes or holds in configured knowledge sources, and returns the complete HTML source in chat ready to save as dashboard-project-date.html. Use when the user asks to "build a dashboard for this project", "make a status page I can pin in the team channel", "give me an HTML overview of milestones, risks and decisions", "refresh the project dashboard from the tracker" or "turn these tracker files into a one-page visual summary". Do not use for creating or updating the tracker files or for the written weekly status report, use project-status-tracker 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。
Decision protocol for strategic work: recall the knowledge vault, run a gap analysis, emit a deep-research prompt for external tools, then synthesize the returned reports into a decision memo. Use before any new product, feature, market, pricing, GTM or architecture call, where local recall alone is not enough. Triggers: "/alfa-search-recall-deepresearch", "alpha protocol", "R+DR".
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 and reviews the internal architecture of a WordPress plugin — folder layout, PSR-4 one-class-per-file discipline, Schema/Constants placement, composition-root vs singleton decisions, conditional asset enqueueing, script config via wp_add_inline_script, and prefixed custom-hook naming. Use when scaffolding includes/src, reviewing class organization, asset enqueue code, repeated strings, or "should I make this a singleton" 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 and interpret TypeSafe Jev decision requests in NV oOS — typed choice/score/noul questions, batching, confidence thresholds, composite scoring, and guardrails. Use when classifying, routing, scoring, or safety-screening content with the typesafe_decide or typesafe_guardrail tools.
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。
Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system design.
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。