7,831 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Submit or update a Wall of Apps entry in the App-Store-Connect-CLI repository using `asc apps wall submit`. Use when the user says "submit to wall of apps", "add my app to the wall", or "wall-of-apps".
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。
Triage TestFlight crashes, beta feedback, and performance diagnostics using asc. Use when the user asks about TF crashes, TestFlight crash reports, beta tester feedback, app hangs, disk writes, launch diagnostics, or wants a crash summary for a build or app.
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。
Guidance for using asc cli in this repo (flags, output formats, pagination, auth, and discovery). Use when asked to run or design asc commands or interact with App Store Connect via the CLI.
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。
Interactive guided tour of all available AI coding skills with live demos. Walks through headline capabilities, offers try-it-now demos, discovers repo-specific tools, and provides a cheat sheet reference. Triggers on what can you do, show skills, skill tour, available tools, capabilities, what skills.
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 Schedule Management Handbook (2024 edition, Revision 2). Use for program/project schedule management of aerospace and large engineering efforts: the five sub-functions (Planning, Development, Assessment & Analysis, Maintenance & Control, Documentation & Communication); the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and the WBS/OBS/CBS breakdown structures; the Schedule Management Plan (SMP) and Basis of Estimate (BoE); Critical Path Method, logic, durations, float and margin; tiered schedule assessment (Requirements/Health/Basis checks, the Shock Test) and the Dimensions of Schedule Reliability; Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA), Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk Analysis (ICSRA), Monte Carlo, correlation, merge bias, and the Joint Confidence Level (JCL); baselining, replan vs. rebaseline, EVM schedule metrics (SPI, BEI, CEI, HMI, Earned Schedule, CPLI), and status/progress/forecast reporting. This is NASA's scheduling doctrine grounded in NPR 7120.5 and the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide. Thin on the underlying mechanics of CPM, statistics, and EVM (it points to companion handbooks); aerospace/space-flight-centric; anchored to the 2024 second edition.
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 OMB Circular A-94 (revised 2023-11-09) on guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of federal programs. Use for BCA principles, benefit/cost measurement, discount-rate policy, uncertainty/sensitivity, distributional incidence, and decision reporting. Rescoped at build to A-94 only (Army CBA Guide unreachable). Does not replace A-11 budget preparation detail, agency-specific statutory BCA rules, or Army CEAC process templates.
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 NASA-STD-7009B (Standard for Models and Simulations) with implementation depth from NASA-HDBK-7009B. Use for M&S criticality and programmatics, development evidence and capability assessment, verification/validation domains, uncertainty and sensitivity, use-phase results assessment, risk-informed decision reporting, and handbook life-cycle products. Covers STD-7009B (2024-03-05) + HDBK-7009B (2026-02-03) synthesized notes only; does not replace program-specific TA direction, NPR 7150.2 software requirements detail, or full PRA methodology.
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 MIL-STD-881F (13 May 2022), DoD Standard Practice for Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items. Use for Program/Contract/Subcontract WBS construction, 100% rule and dictionary discipline, commodity appendices A–J, Common Elements (K), sustainment CES reporting (L), Government ST&E (M), and RFP/post-award implementation. Technical planning & WBS and PM/measurement focus—not a cost manual substitute for CAPE policy.
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。
Анализ требований к документации: Анализирует документы концепций и требований в папке docs/, проверяет требования на соответствие текущему коду и создает консолидированный отчет об отклонениях.
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。
ドキュメント要件分析: docs/ フォルダ内のコンセプトおよび要件ドキュメントを分析し、現在のコードと照らし合わせて要件を検証し、統合差異レポートを作成します。
文档需求分析：分析 docs/ 文件夹中的概念与需求文档，针对当前代码检查需求，并生成整合的差异报告。
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。
Análisis de requisitos de documentos: Analiza los documentos de concepto y requisitos en la carpeta docs/, verifica los requisitos con el código actual y crea un informe de diferencias consolidado.
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。
Anbieterneutrales Onboarding-Protokoll für einen neuen, neu aufgesetzten oder ausgetauschten Arbeitsplatzrechner. Es richtet Betriebssystemvoraussetzungen, Agentenlaufzeiten, gemeinsame Regelflächen, portable Skills, verifizierte Konfiguration und Nachweise nach der Installation ein, ohne Zugangsdaten, private Prompts oder host-spezifische Konfiguration in ein Repository zu kopieren.
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。
Manages your own skill landscape: surveys and compares existing skills (Audit mode), researches the web for new skills/plugins (Explore mode), and is at the same time the installer that generates lean subskills (Skill-Finder, family umbrella, maintenance skills) instead of loading a monolith. Use this skill for "compare/audit skills", "which skills are duplicated", "form skill families", "clean up/consolidate skills", "maintain the skill register", "find skills/plugins for topic X", "install new skills", "browse the skill marketplace", or for `/skill-explorer`. Delivers a sub-report per family and a globally numbered decision list; installs/uninstalls only after a security check and explicit approval.
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 6-phase debugging protocol. Structured approach to bugs with quick checks, isolated testing, 20-minute rule, and bug report template.
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。
Standard-Gerüst für rotierende Pipeline-Checks: Pro Lauf genau ein Ziel aus einer Menge (Projekte, Ordner, Repos) wählen — bevorzugt das am längsten ungeprüfte —, den Check durchführen, Ergebnis in einer Check-Registry und einem Verlaufslog festhalten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein wiederkehrender Check über viele Projekte verteilt werden soll („prüfe regelmäßig alle X auf Y"), wenn eine Automatisierung Doppelprüfungen vermeiden muss, wenn eine Check-Registry/CHECKS-LOG-Struktur angelegt oder benutzt wird, oder wenn eine periodische Qualitätsrunde (Quellencheck, Style-Check, Health-Check, Audit) über eine Pipeline fair verteilt werden soll.
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。
Systemneutrale Automatisierung für lösungsorientierten Community Outreach und Repo-Recommender in Foren, Reddit und Plattformen nach dem Human-in-the-Loop-Prinzip (EU AI Act konform).
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。
Builds a slide-by-slide presentation draft on the user's own slide template and checks every slide against written brand rules (colours with hex codes, fonts, logo placement, slide archetypes, tone, banned visuals), returning the approved outline, the DRAFT deck content and a compliance report as Markdown. Use when the user asks to "build this deck on our template", "make these slides on-brand", "check this presentation against our brand guidelines", "rebuild these slides to corporate identity (CI)" or asks for a CI-compliant or corporate-template presentation. Do not use for an accessibility review of slides, use document-accessibility-check 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。
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。
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。
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。
Converts a priced estimate spreadsheet into a DRAFT statement of work populated from the user's own SOW template, after checking that line items, hours, rates, subtotals and the grand total add up. Returns the populated SOW and a validation report as Markdown, flags every discrepancy and marks missing fields TBC. Use when the user asks to "turn this estimate into an SOW", "build the statement of work from the pricing workbook", "convert the quote into a scope document", "populate our SOW template from the estimate" or "draft the engagement document from the rate card". Do not use for reviewing or editing an existing SOW, use contract-review-pack instead; for a proposal before pricing is fixed use proposal-skeleton; for RFP or tender answers use rfp-response-drafter. 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。