「stat」の検索結果

Interaktives Reißverschluss-Audit-Verfahren für eine Serie von Apps/Prüfobjekten: der User testet live und gibt kurzes Feedback im Chat, der Agent startet dabei bereits das nächste Objekt UND wertet parallel das Feedback des vorigen aus (strukturiert erfassen, Reparaturaufträge sofort an Worker delegieren) — statt sequenziell zu warten. Nutze diesen Skill bei "human-loop-audit", "lass uns die Apps im Reißverschluss durchtesten", "ich teste, du wertest aus und reparierst", oder wenn eine Reihe von GUIs/Produkten gemeinsam mit dem Nutzer durchgetestet werden soll und Befunde sofort in Reparaturen münden sollen. Abschluss ist eine strukturierte Befundliste je Objekt (Funktioniert/Defekt/Wunsch) plus die Liste der bereits gestarteten Reparaturen.

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。

Reißverschluss-Verfahren (englisch: zipper merge) für sehr konfliktreiche Merges: Wenn zwei divergente Branches oder ein PR und sein Zielbranch BEIDE wertvolle, unvereinbar erscheinende Änderungen tragen, wird nicht pauschal eine Seite gewählt, sondern Abschnitt für Abschnitt verglichen, per Entscheidungstabelle (Nimm/Warum) die jeweils bessere Version übernommen, abschnittsweise committet und erst am Ende gepusht. Letzte Eskalationsstufe: Rebuild statt Merge — nur die Absicht/Funktionalität des Branches übernehmen und auf dem aktuellen Stand neu bauen. Nutzen bei: "Merge-Konflikt", "divergente Branches", "main vs. master", "konfliktreicher PR", "zipper merge", "Reißverschluss", "beide Seiten haben Recht", "PR ist zu alt zum Mergen".

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。

Tiefe Pflegerunde für ein veröffentlichtes GitHub-Repository (Stufe 2): enthält den vollständigen surface-after-care-Durchlauf und ergänzt ihn um drei teure Schritte — rechtliche Ersteinschätzung über die Law-Checker mit Wiedervorlage nach einem Jahr (Gutachten bleibt gitignored im Repo), Querverweise zu verwandten Repos über ALLE Organisationen hinweg sowie das Nachziehen aller Sprachen auf App-Ebene, nicht nur in der Doku. Nutze diesen Skill bei "full after care", "deep after care", "tiefe Repo-Pflege", "große Runde", "Repo grundlegend durchgehen", wenn ein Repo länger nicht geprüft wurde, vor größeren Releases oder wenn rechtliche Relevanz, Querverweise oder Mehrsprachigkeit ausdrücklich Thema sind. Für die günstige, oft wiederholte Runde stattdessen surface-after-care; für die Erstveröffentlichung github-repo-care.

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。

Nutzerneutrale Prüfung von Repositories vor einer Veröffentlichung oder bei einer erneuten öffentlichen Prüfung. Kontrolliert Privacy, Geheimnisse, Lizenzen, Drittinhalte, Dokumentation und Freigabestatus, ohne die Veröffentlichung selbst vorzunehmen.

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。

Regelmäßiger Pflegedurchlauf für ein bereits veröffentlichtes GitHub-Repository (Stufe 1, günstig und oft wiederholbar): zuerst alle Distributionsflächen des Projekts ermitteln (npm, PyPI, Registries, Marketplaces, Stores, Website) und Änderungen später dorthin spiegeln, dann Topics setzen, Privacy-Gate, Dokumente auf Veröffentlichungsabsicht prüfen und interne Planungsdateien nachträglich ignorieren, Banner ergänzen, Aussagen im README gegen den echten Code-Stand abgleichen, Darstellung verbessern, Sprachfassungen der README vervollständigen, Sichtbarkeitsmaßnahmen umsetzen, Eintrag auf der Organisationsseite prüfen sowie offene Issues und Pull Requests abarbeiten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein bestehendes Repo gepflegt, aufgeräumt, aktualisiert, aufgehübscht oder "mal wieder durchgesehen" werden soll, wenn ein Repo veraltet oder unaufgeräumt wirkt, bei Formulierungen wie "Repo-Pflege", "after care", "Nachpflege", "Repo auf Stand bringen", "aufräumen und pushen" oder bei rotierenden Qualitätsrunden über mehrere Repos. Für die tiefe Runde inkl. Rechtscheck und orga-übergreifenden Querverweisen stattdessen full-after-care nutzen; für die Erstveröffentlichung github-repo-care.

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 deal's notes and timeline (CRM opportunity record, activity log, emails, meeting notes, forecast entries) for risk signals such as a single contact thread, no identified budget owner, slipped or missing dates, silence after a proposal, an undefined decision process or a competitor named late, and returns a DRAFT risk register: each signal with the quoted evidence and its date, a severity on a stated scale, and one proposed next action with an owner role for the user to decide on. Use when the user asks to "review the risks on this deal", "why is this opportunity stalling", "is this deal single-threaded", "deal health check before the forecast call" or "what should we do next on <opportunity>". Do not use for a whole-account plan, use account-plan-builder instead; for scoring early leads against a rubric use lead-qualification-scorer. 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。

Writes a DRAFT weekly KPI report from the figures the user pastes or attaches (this week, last week, optionally target and earlier weeks): a metrics table with change versus last week computed only from the stated figures, plain-language notes per metric, and numbered questions on every figure that moved more than the agreed threshold, crossed its target or broke its run. Use when the user asks to "write the weekly KPI report", "turn these numbers into this week's metrics report", "what changed versus last week", "draft the Monday numbers update" or "add commentary to this metrics table". Do not use for a recurring emailed report with a maintained trend sheet, use report-attachment-analyzer instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer. 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 the trend update for a recurring emailed report: identifies report emails not yet processed, extracts the configured metrics from their spreadsheet, CSV or PDF attachments, returns new rows for an append-only trends sheet and writes a DRAFT summary with period-on-period deltas and flagged anomalies. Use when the user asks to "update the trends for the weekly report", "analyse the latest monthly report", "what changed in the latest report", "do the latest numbers look unusual" or "set up tracking for a report that arrives by email". Do not use for a single file with no trend state, use dataset-insight-pack 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。

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。

Builds an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack 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。

Prepares a DRAFT internal audit pack from the audit plan: scope as stated, criteria with clauses quoted from the documents provided, document requests per auditee with due dates, open interview questions per process and role, previous findings to follow up and a readiness checklist. Never pre-judges conformity, writes findings or selects the sample; the lead auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the internal audit", "build the audit pack from this plan", "draft the document requests and interview questions" or "get us ready for the supplier audit". Do not use for evidence requests built from a control list, use control-evidence-request-pack instead; to chase actions from earlier audits, use corrective-action-tracker. 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 a control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, use claims-evidence-map. 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 DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill 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 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。

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。

Reads a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, use corrective-action-tracker. 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 DRAFT user personas from the research notes, interview summaries, survey free text and support themes the user provides: for each persona the goals, pains, jobs to be done, context of use, quotes exactly as supplied with their participant codes, and the evidence count behind every attribute, with names, demographics and any detail no participant stated left UNKNOWN rather than invented. Use when the user asks to "build personas from these interviews", "who are our users based on this research", "draft user personas", "turn these research notes into personas" or "update our personas with the new interviews". Do not use for theming a batch of customer feedback into counts, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis; for the requirements those personas imply, use product-requirements-draft. 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 DRAFT proposal skeleton from a discovery summary (call notes, discovery brief, CRM record, emails) and the organisation's own proposal template: every template section in order, pre-filled only where the discovery material supports it with the source beside each line, and every section still needing a human input marked HUMAN INPUT with the owner role and the question to answer. Use when the user asks to "start the proposal for <prospect>", "build the proposal skeleton from the discovery notes", "pre-fill our proposal template", "what do we already have for the proposal" or "first cut of the proposal". Do not use for answering a formal RFP, RFQ or tender question set, use rfp-response-drafter instead; for turning a priced estimate into a statement of work use estimate-to-sow. 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。

Answers an employee's or manager's HR policy question strictly from the policy documents the user supplies or the agent can reach as knowledge: a DRAFT answer that quotes the governing clause with its document, version and clause reference, lists the conditions and exceptions the text states, returns UNKNOWN where the documents are silent and names the role to ask. Never invents a rule, fills a gap from general practice or decides an individual's case. Use when the user asks to check a policy, for example "what does the policy say about", "am I entitled to", "how many days of leave do I get", "what is the process for requesting", "does the handbook allow" or "which clause covers". Do not use for comparing two policy versions or briefing a change, use policy-change-briefing 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。

Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer 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 and maintains a DRAFT impact log from notes, messages, status updates and completed work: one row per outcome with its evidence and evidence level, date, who benefited and the source it traces to, plus a gap list of outcomes that still lack evidence, structured so a later review, appraisal or promotion case can draw on it. Use when the user asks to "start an impact log", "add this to my impact log", "log what I achieved this quarter", "pull my wins out of these notes", "turn these messages into evidence for my review" or "what do I have evidence for so far". Do not use for a performance rating, ranking, pay or promotion decision, the skill records evidence and never judges it; for the review narrative itself, use performance-review-drafter; for a role profile built from the work, use job-description-drafter 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。

Drafts one anonymised DRAFT case study (situation, approach, outcome as evidenced, optional lessons) from engagement notes, status reports, closing reports, emails and metrics extracts the user supplies, with a fact trace to the notes, an evidence grade on every result, quotes only where the user supplied them with speaker role and permission, an anonymisation log and a confidentiality checklist that must be completed before publication. Use when the user asks to "write a case study from these notes", "turn this engagement into a customer story", "draft a success story for the website", "anonymise this project write-up" or "prepare a reference case for the proposal". Do not use for redacting identifiers from an existing document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; for checking whether a document's claims are substantiated, use claims-evidence-map. 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 the instructions text and skills of a declarative agent, with its stated capabilities, knowledge sources and audience, for prompt-injection exposure, data-leakage paths, over-broad permissions and missing refusals, and returns an attack-surface map, a findings table with severity, quoted evidence and attack path, one pasteable fix per finding, a probe pack the owner can run and a refusal-coverage table. Use when the user asks to "red-team this agent", "check these instructions for prompt injection", "could this agent leak data", "review the permissions on my agent" or "what should this agent refuse". Do not use for checking a SKILL.md against the format rules, use skill-file-reviewer instead; do not use for designing the launch test set, use agent-evaluation-plan 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。