「quest」の検索結果

Terapia Breve Centrada en Soluciones según de Shazer y Berg: Pregunta del milagro, exploración de excepciones, escalamiento, activación de recursos.

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。

Ориентированная на решение краткосрочная терапия по де Шейзеру и Берг: Чудо-вопрос, исследование исключений, шкалирование, активация ресурсов.

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。

德·沙泽尔与伯格的焦点解决短期心理治疗（SFBT）：奇迹提问、例外探索、评定量表、资源激活。

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。

Canalización automatizada de desarrollo de software. Escanea proyectos, prioriza tareas, analiza código u orquesta bucles de desarrollo. Cero dependencias (solo la biblioteca estándar de Python).

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。

Orquestación multimodelo y estrategia de cambio de modelos. Selección de modelos basada en puntuación, delegación entre agentes (Gemini, Codex, Ollama), emparejamiento con advisor, disparadores de escalado, matriz de permisos y optimización de eficiencia de costos.

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。

Systemische Fragetechniken: Zirkuläre Fragen, Skalierungsfragen, Wunderfrage und Ausnahmefragen zur Reflexion und Perspektiverweiterung.

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。

Points to the standalone module law-checker ("Legal Department"): source-grounded AI first-look legal assessments for German law with a statute registry and a statute-embodiment agent. Use this skill when a situation, contract, official notice, or legal question under German law should be checked with exact citations (article/section, paragraph, sentence) -- with a clear boundary: AI-assisted first orientation, not a substitute for a lawyer.

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。

Fundamentals of therapeutic communication: Active listening, mirroring, paraphrasing, open questions, and validation.

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。

Ordnet freiwillig bereitgestellte Gesundheitsinformationen und bereitet Fragen für Fachpersonen vor.

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。

8-phase development cycle: Feature requests, current state, functional planning, frontend, backend planning, backend code, tests, use cases. Iterative framework for systematic software development.

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。

Systematic bug sweep with a codebase-scaled target value, doubling escalation, area tracking, and final verification. Use on /bugsweep or whenever the user requests a systematic bug pass.

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。

Turns corrective and preventive actions from NCRs, audit reports, action forms, minutes or a tracker into one DRAFT tracker: action as stated, source, owner, due date, evidence expected and status, with flags for overdue, unowned, undated, stale and closed-without-evidence items and one question per flag. Never closes, verifies, reassigns or re-dates an action. Use when the user asks to "build the CAPA tracker", "update the corrective action log from these audit reports", "which actions are overdue or have no owner" or "draft the chase notes for open actions". Do not use for writing up the nonconformity itself, use nonconformance-report-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。

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。

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 a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-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。

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。

Scores inbound leads against the qualification rubric the user supplies (criteria, scale, weights, thresholds and disqualifiers as given): one DRAFT scorecard per lead with the evidence quoted per criterion, UNKNOWN wherever the lead's information is missing, totals shown with and without the UNKNOWN criteria, a ranked list and a suggested next step such as a qualification call, a request for missing details, nurture or a courteous decline. Use when the user asks to "score these inbound leads", "qualify this lead against our rubric", "run the web form submissions through our lead criteria", "which of these leads should sales call first" or "build a lead scorecard". Do not use for preparing the first call with a lead, use discovery-call-prep instead; for an existing account's growth plan use account-plan-builder. 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。

Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, use project-status-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。

Compares a changed HR policy with the version it replaces and drafts a clause-by-clause change log, a plain-language DRAFT employee briefing, a manager FAQ answered only from the policy text with clause references, and a list of open questions the people team must settle before release. Use when the user asks to explain, announce, summarise or brief a policy change, a new policy version or an updated handbook section, or says "what changed in the leave policy", "brief managers on the new handbook section" or "compare the old and new versions of this policy". Do not use for a single announcement with no version comparison, use announcement-drafter instead; for an FAQ from documents that are not a policy change, use faq-builder; for contract clauses, use clause-comparison-table. 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 process notes, a walkthrough or interview transcript, a transcript of a meeting recording or a stale existing procedure into a draft standard operating procedure: purpose and trigger, scope, definitions, roles with a RACI table, numbered steps with the check that closes each one, records produced, controls as stated, and open questions for the process owner. Every step traces to the source or reads UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "write an SOP from these notes", "turn this walkthrough into a procedure", "document how we do this", "draft the standard operating procedure for", "build a RACI for this process" or "tidy up this old procedure". Do not use for technical runbooks with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for meeting minutes and action lists, use transcript-to-actions. 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 a blameless incident postmortem (summary, impact, timeline, detection and response, contributing factors as candidates for review, action items) from an incident channel export, ticket notes and any alert or change records, with UNKNOWN for every fact the inputs do not contain. Never assigns blame, names a root cause or re-rates severity. Use when the user asks to "write the postmortem for this incident", "build the incident timeline from the chat export", "draft the post-incident review" or "turn this ticket and channel log into an incident report". Do not use for a knowledge article from the resolved ticket, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis; for data-breach impact and notification questions, use data-incident-impact-brief. 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。

Applies a change-safety review to any requested file, mail or calendar change: lists every create, modify, move, rename, archive or delete before proposing it, marks destructive items as requiring the user's typed confirmation, proposes versioned file names instead of overwrites, declines to draft bulk destructive operations, and drafts a change journal entry for the user to keep. Use when the user asks to "clean up this folder", "delete the old versions", "reorganise these files", "archive everything older than a year", "rename and move these documents" or "make sure nothing gets overwritten while we work", or when any task is about to create or modify files, emails or calendar items. Do not use for backing up, journalling or restoring a skills folder, use skills-backup-keeper 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。