「fact」の検索結果

Use when you need to refactor Java code for high performance — including memory/allocation reduction, CPU hot-path optimization, and syntax/API/control-flow improvements. This should trigger for requests such as Review Java code for high performance; Optimize Java hot path; Reduce Java allocations; Improve Java latency/throughput. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 you need GitHub CLI (`gh`) installation/authentication guidance and an operator-only GitHub issue inventory workflow. The agent does not ingest GitHub issue, milestone, body, comment, title, label, or summary text; requirements analysis must use repository-owned planning artifacts, with issue numbers only for traceability. This should trigger for requests such as GitHub issue inventory workflow; GitHub CLI setup for issues; Prepare issue traceability lists; Analyze repository planning artifacts linked to GitHub issues. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 Java implementation work should be guided by Test-Driven Development, including maintaining a test list, choosing the next behavior, writing a failing test first, implementing only enough production code to pass, and refactoring while keeping tests green. This should trigger for requests such as Apply TDD; Use test-driven development; Drive this Java change with tests; Write the failing test first; Red-green-refactor this feature. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 a complex or risky code change should be split into Kent Beck's two-step method by first making the change easy through behavior-preserving preparatory refactoring, then making the intended behavior change once the design supports it. This should trigger for requests such as Apply two-step change; Make this risky change safer; Refactor before changing behavior; Separate preparation from behavior change. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 reviewing, improving, or refactoring Java object-oriented design, including applying SOLID, DRY, or YAGNI; improving classes and interfaces; correcting encapsulation, inheritance, or polymorphism; resolving God Class, Feature Envy, or Data Clumps; and improving object creation, methods, or exception contracts. Triggers include review Java OOD, refactor Java OOD, improve Java OOD, fix OOP misuse, and identify Java code smells. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 you need to review, improve, or refactor Java code for generics quality — including avoiding raw types, applying the PECS (Producer Extends Consumer Super) principle for wildcards, using bounded type parameters, designing effective generic methods, leveraging the diamond operator, understanding type erasure implications, handling generic inheritance correctly, preventing heap pollution with @SafeVarargs, and integrating generics with modern Java features like Records, sealed types, and pattern matching. This should trigger for requests such as Improve the code with Generics; Apply Generics; Refactor the code with Generics; Improve generic type safety in Java APIs; Fix raw types and unchecked casts in Java code. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 Java design, refactoring, or implementation tradeoffs should be evaluated with Kent Beck's simple design rules, including passes the tests, reveals intention, has no duplication, and has the fewest elements. This should trigger for requests such as Apply simple design rules; Review this design with Beck's rules; Choose between these refactoring options; Keep this Java design simple. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 you need to apply functional programming principles in Java — including writing immutable objects and Records, pure functions, functional interfaces, lambda expressions, Stream API pipelines, Optional for null safety, function composition, higher-order functions, pattern matching for instanceof and switch, sealed classes/interfaces for controlled hierarchies, Stream Gatherers for custom operations, currying/partial application, effect boundary separation, and concurrent-safe functional patterns. This should trigger for requests such as Improve the code with Functional Programming; Apply Functional Programming; Refactor the code with Functional Programming; Refactor Java code to use streams or Optionals safely; Improve immutability and pure functions in Java. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 creating or refining a structured Java implementation plan from trusted issue summaries, approved designs, ADRs, OpenSpec changes, existing plans, or a valid combination. The plan records its source artifacts and derivation direction and can remain the execution artifact without requiring OpenSpec. This should trigger for requests such as Create a plan from an issue; Create a plan from OpenSpec; Design an implementation plan; Refine an existing plan. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 working with CSS, creating components, styling elements, refactoring styles, or reviewing CSS code. Triggers on "CSS", "styles", "Tailwind", "dark mode", "component styling", "semantic class", "@apply", "stylesheet". Routes to specialized sub-skills for creation, validation, or refactoring.

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, edit, and refactor code with full tool access - Use when you need to actually write or modify code, create files, run commands, or implement features.

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。

Lifecycle SOP for **per-model prompt artifacts** — the compiled prompts, instructions, few-shot demos, edit-format pins, and embedding-bound indices that change behavior when the underlying LM, dataset, or framework version changes. Activate when adopting compiled prompts (DSPy, GEPA, BootstrapFewShot output), when supporting multiple LMs in production, when a provider deprecates a model snapshot, or when a framework deprecates a config surface (LlamaIndex `ServiceContext` → `Settings`, Aider edit-format defaults). Do NOT activate for one-off raw prompt edits or for truly model-agnostic system prompts that have been swap-tested. Search keywords: prompt portability, model swap, recompile prompt, model deprecation, prompt per model, prompt breaks on new model, version compiled prompts.

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 fact-checking workflow. Use when verifying claims for publication, rating claims, or setting pre-publication checks.

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-driven development for substantive feature, bug-fix, and behavior-changing work. Use automatically when implementing features, fixing bugs, or changing behavior (red → green → refactor). Also use when the user mentions TDD, /tdd, /TDD, or red-green-refactor. Do not use for documentation-only, formatting-only, exact generated-mirror, or provenance-only changes.

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 an OpenSpec change by revising its existing planning artifacts and keeping them coherent with one another. Use when the user wants to revise a change's plan, fold new decisions into it, or reconcile its artifacts after an edit. Never edits code.

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。

Calculate material waste factors and losses using CWICR norms. Apply waste percentages, cutting losses, and spillage factors to material quantities.

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 geographic location factors to CWICR estimates. Adjust costs for regional labor rates, material prices, and market conditions.

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。

Refactor and review SwiftUI view files with strong defaults for small dedicated subviews, MV-over-MVVM data flow, stable view trees, explicit dependency injection, and correct Observation usage. Use when cleaning up a SwiftUI view, splitting long bodies, removing inline actions or side effects, reducing computed `some View` helpers, or standardizing `@Observable` and view model initialization patterns.

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。

Refactor and review SwiftUI view files for consistent structure, dependency injection, and Observation usage. Use when asked to clean up a SwiftUI view’s layout/ordering, handle view models safely (non-optional when possible), or standardize how dependencies and @Observable state are initialized and passed.

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。

Deeply research technical architecture, source code, mechanisms, SDKs, frameworks, project comparisons, and system-design options across repositories, history, official docs, issues, discussions, and high-quality community signals. Use when the user asks for deep research, source-level understanding, architecture comparison, mechanism satisfaction, or evidence for designing a system. Always map the question and obtain confirmation before beginning substantive research; skip for simple factual lookups or straightforward implementation 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。

Capture and retrieve durable YYLO Ledger artifact Records with intentional profiles, payload modes, provenance, retention, and secret-safe immutable 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。

This skill should be used when the user asks to "research", "fact-check", "check the history", "is this accurate", "research notes", "sources", "historical accuracy", "technical accuracy", "how would this really work", "verify a detail", "interview an expert", "plan a site visit", "expert review", or needs to investigate and record the real-world facts a story relies on and the chapters that use them.

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。

Applies Han's shared Human-Readable Output Standard to a target you already have — a file on disk, text pasted into the prompt, or a draft already produced in the conversation — by dispatching the readability-editor to rewrite its prose so the main point comes first, headings are descriptive, each paragraph carries one idea, and sentences stay short and active, while preserving every fact. Use when you want to make a document or draft readable, edit or polish prose for readability, clean up writing, tighten wording, or re-apply the readability standard to something already written. Rewrites prose only, leaving code, diagrams, and citation identifiers unchanged. Does not write new feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not restructure code or review it — use refactor to restructure code and code-review to audit it. Does not judge the underlying work or raise findings; it only rewrites the writing.

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。

Analyzes an existing codebase using strategic Domain-Driven Design to discover bounded contexts, surface ubiquitous language and semantic collisions, find places where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries, and produce an evidence-backed domain and context map. Use when the goal is DDD-specific: bounded context discovery, ubiquitous language analysis, domain model discovery, or mapping contested ownership and responsibility. The entire repository is a valid scope; no module or directory must be named first. Does not assess architectural coupling, cohesion, or technical debt — use architectural-analysis. Does not design service communication, integration patterns, or deployment topology — use architectural-analysis or plan-a-feature. Does not refactor code, diagnose bugs, or review code quality — use refactor, investigate, or code-review.

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。