2,678 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Publish, read, comment on, or edit markdown in Proof. Use for Proof links, sharing specs/plans/drafts, or publish handoffs from planning workflows; avoid proofread, math, evidence, or proof-of-concept meanings.
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。
Assess whether furniture fits in a measured Pascal room or layout. Use this skill for sofa, table, bed, cabinet, appliance, staging, placement, collision, clearance, or rotated-footprint questions. Produce a tool-backed spatial report that distinguishes footprint fit from unsupported height, door-swing, assembly, and delivery-route claims, and return insufficient evidence when dimensions or scale are 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。
Design notes on a PR, "Design review (advisory)" in the evidence check, "worth fixing", layout.split-row, OW-LIST, a reviewer says the UI looks off. Use to read what the design review found on a PR's screenshots, fix it in code, and prove the note is gone.
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。
Validate the release, check the released binaries, is 0.18.x safe to roll out, prove a published desktop release. Boots the RELEASED mac-arm64 enterprise and cloud binaries through the packaged journeys, checks updater manifests and notarization, and publishes evidence.
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 a candidate OpenSEO skill end to end by running fresh, isolated Codex sessions against the local backend and scoring the reports they save. Use when editing a product skill (seo-audit, keyword-research, ...) and you need evidence that the new instructions produce better output, not just a cleaner file.
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。
Reproduce stale NemoClaw bug reports on the reported and newest releases, then propose evidence-backed triage. Never auto-closes issues.
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。
Compare competing NemoClaw PRs for one issue and recommend a merge or salvage candidate from review evidence.
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 or divide a named NemoClaw issue into independently useful changes with acceptance evidence. Use for planning requests 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。
Investigate and review evidence-backed workflows with Screenpipe tools and shared drafts.
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。
Prepare an evidence-backed handoff with current state, relevant artifacts, blockers, and next actions.
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 Apache ShardingSphere or user-authorized downstream pull requests and PR discussions from public or authorized repository evidence. Use for code-correctness or mergeability decisions, CI-focused review, root-cause and regression analysis, complete consolidated findings, copy-ready committer feedback, challenged findings, multi-round review, and formal review of local implementation candidates in the repository completion loop.
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。
Used to analyze Apache ShardingSphere community issues. Emphasizes root-cause-first and evidence-first classification before conclusions, and produces copy-ready GitHub issue replies in the voice of an Apache ShardingSphere community maintainer.
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。
Apply Apache ShardingSphere's written coding standards when explicitly requested, or when code-implementation routes task-changed production, test, script, build, generated, or Maven POM artifacts through repository standards. Also perform a standalone read-only compliance audit of a user-specified scope. Use CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, applicable AGENTS.md rules, Checkstyle, Spotless, and other repository-defined standards, including naming and evidence-based defensive-code rules. Do not invoke independently for an ordinary implementation already governed by code-implementation, and do not independently audit architecture, runtime ownership, caches, or lifecycle.
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。
Scores an inbound application against the role's written rubric with supporting quotes as evidence, writes a structured screen back to {{applications_source}}, and proposes interview slots on {{hiring_manager_calendar}} for strong matches. Never advances or rejects a candidate — every decision stays with the hiring manager.
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。
PUA Shot — compact all-in-one PUA reference for explicit injection into sub-agents or short sessions. Strong flavor, same evidence-first behavior.
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。
PUA Loop — guided iterative development with recurring checks, completion evidence, and pause/abort markers. Use only when the user explicitly asks for loop/自动迭代 mode.
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。
Performance-coaching mode for repeated failures, passive behavior, completion-quality issues, or explicit try-harder requests. Uses structured troubleshooting and evidence-first delivery habits.
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 experiments complete to judge what claims the results support, what they don't, and what evidence is still missing. A secondary Codex agent evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm). Use after experiments finish — before writing the paper or running ablations.
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。
Zero-context verification that every number, comparison, and scope claim in the paper matches raw result files. Uses a fresh Codex reviewer with no prior context; base output is same-family provisional. Use when user says "审查论文数据", "check paper claims", "verify numbers", "论文数字核对", or before submission to ensure paper-to-evidence fidelity.
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。
Manage a stateful, run-directory-based proof project with Codex: continuation across runs, run-local source bookkeeping, manual GPT Pro handoff packages when a local attempt stalls, and an optional DeepSeek second opinion as additional evidence only. Use when the user asks for proof-run orchestration, a GPT Pro handoff, or cross-run proof continuation — use /proof-writer for ordinary proof drafting and /proof-checker for rigorous verification or submission acceptance.
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。
Search GitHub, Stack Exchange, Chinese technical communities, official documentation, and general developer web sources for software errors, compatibility problems, API usage questions, and real-world workarounds. Use for debugging and discovery only; results are not paper-citation evidence.
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 experiments complete to judge what claims the results support, what they don't, and what evidence is still missing. Codex MCP evaluates results against intended claims and routes to next action (pivot, supplement, or confirm). Use after experiments finish — before writing the paper or running ablations.
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。
Manage a stateful, run-directory-based proof project: continuation across runs, run-local source bookkeeping, manual GPT Pro handoff packages when a local attempt stalls, and an optional DeepSeek second opinion as additional evidence only. Use when the user asks for proof-run orchestration, a GPT Pro handoff, or cross-run proof continuation — use /proof-writer for ordinary proof drafting and /proof-checker for rigorous verification or submission acceptance.
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。
Zero-context verification that every number, comparison, and scope claim in the paper matches raw result files. Uses a fresh cross-model reviewer with NO prior context to prevent confirmation bias. Use when user says "审查论文数据", "check paper claims", "verify numbers", "论文数字核对", or before submission to ensure paper-to-evidence fidelity.
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。