「firm」の検索結果

Finds the cause of a hard bug by running several read-only subagents in parallel, each attacking it from a different angle (change history, code path, data and state, environment, reproduction), then checking their evidence, ranking the hypotheses and naming the one experiment that would confirm the leader. It diagnoses and does not fix. Use when someone says "hunt this bug with multiple agents", "swarm on this regression", "investigate in parallel", "find the root cause", or when a failure is intermittent, crosses components, or has resisted a first look.

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。

Generate comprehensive market research reports (50+ pages) in the style of top consulting firms (McKinsey, BCG, Gartner). Professional LaTeX formatting, strategic analysis frameworks (Porter's Five Forces, PESTLE, SWOT, TAM/SAM/SOM, BCG Matrix), and deep research integration.

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。

Extract action items as plain markdown bullets (with confirmation). Args: <path>. No args = run [/note-status pending --step=todos](../note-status/SKILL.md#pending-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。

Triage Meetings/_inbox/ — move each file to the correct subfolder by finding adjacent/similar notes via qmd, applying learned routing conventions from memory, and confirming with the user.

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。

Challenges a recommendation, design, large change, or any artifact submitted for hard review (spec, proposal, policy, plan) across 5 dimensions (consistency, completeness, actionability, alignment, risk), from the standards of a named senior expert in the artifact's domain and ideally from a fresh context or a different model. Searches assuming defects exist and reports only those that survive evidence. Panel mode runs several independent lenses in parallel on a release candidate, verifies every finding against the current head, and routes confirmed ones to file owners. Use before shipping a significant recommendation, design, large branch, or multi-agent release, or when asked to tear something apart, be brutally honest, or poke holes in it.

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。

Audit whether a paper's EVALUATION DESIGN actually measures what it claims and whether its reporting is complete — the validity layer family D (experiment-forensics) cannot reach. Three patterns: train/test leakage means the reported score may not measure generalization (HP-EVAL-LEAKAGE — adopts the Kapoor & Narayanan 8-type / 3-category leakage taxonomy; the illegitimate-proxy / sampling-bias / pretraining-contamination subtypes hand off as needs_external_check, naming but NEVER running Oren-2023 exchangeability / Shi-2023 Min-K% / Golchin-2023 Time-Travel / BIG-bench canary); a load-bearing LLM judge is conflicted (same model/family as a compared system) or unvalidated (no human-agreement, no bias control) (HP-JUDGE-VALIDITY); a declared condition/metric is dropped or switched to favor the method, or 'best' is chosen with no held-out set (HP-SELECTIVE-REPORTING). Verdict-bearing at L0/L1 from the DESCRIBED protocol — NOT repo-gated like experiment-forensics; L2 only CONFIRMS against split/preprocessing/result files. A fresh cross-model reviewer (gpt-5.6-sol xhigh, read-only, fresh thread per pass) PROPOSES findings, each span-anchored to a ledger claim_id; tools/adjudicate_findings.py DECIDES the verdict. Leakage and under-reporting are usually HONEST methodological errors — every finding describes a discrepancy to CHECK, never an accusation. An LLM generating GROUND-TRUTH labels is HP-FAKE-GT (experiment-forensics) — routed there, not here. Emits eval-design-forensics.findings.json; computes NO verdict. Detect-only. Triggers: "eval design audit", "evaluation validity", "train/test leakage", "data leakage", "is the score measuring generalization", "LLM judge bias", "is the judge validated", "selective reporting", "cherry-picked results", "评估设计审计", "评测有效性", "数据泄漏", "训练测试集泄漏", "裁判模型有没有验证", "选择性报告".

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。

Synthesize the single strongest EVIDENCE-BOUND reviewer case to reject a paper, built ONLY from the evidence ledger (claims.json) + the other auditors' confirmed findings — never free-floating LLM critique. Two fresh cross-model codex threads: an attack writes the ~200-word rejection paragraph (every accusation tagged to an existing claim_id/finding_id), a defense decomposes it and rules each point against the anchored evidence. MEMO-ONLY: emits adversarial-case-builder.memo.md (fed to the adjudicator via --memo) and carries NO verdict weight — tools/adjudicate_findings.py lists it in ZERO_WEIGHT_SKILLS and caps it at info. Honest-null allowed (the paper may survive). Run LAST. Detect-only. Adapted from ARIS kill-argument. Triggers: "adversarial case", "strongest objection", "rejection memo", "kill argument", "最强拒稿点".

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。

投行并购 (投行并购 / 交易撮合 (Investment Banking M&A / Dealmaking) — 面向并购顾问、企业融资、卖方/买方交易执行的职业认知操作系统，从业者(分析师 Analyst / 经理 Associate / 副总裁 VP / 董事 Director / 董事总经理 MD / 内部公司发展 Corp Dev / PE 投资人)、想入行者、以及服务这行(法律/会计/估值/咨询)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 投行 M&A 的核心世界观分歧: **价格 vs 价值 (price 是市场愿意付的, value 是内在的, deal 在两者缝隙里成交) ⇄ 确定性 vs 最高价 (certainty of close 对卖方常胜过纸面最高报价) ⇄ 顾问/中介 vs 委托代理 (banker 是 agent, 客户利益 vs 成交费的激励冲突真实存在, 「banker 总想成交」是行业原罪批判)**; 更深层 — 「过程/竞价纪律 (controlled auction 制造竞争张力、信息不对称管理) ⇄ 关系/信任 (relationship banking、长期 coverage、reputational capital)」, 「叙事/包装 (the story, equity story, positioning) ⇄ 数字/尽调 (the numbers, diligence, quality of earnings)」, 「估值的科学外衣 (DCF/comps 的伪精确) ⇄ 谈判的真实定价 (价格由 leverage、竞争、时机决定)」; (b) 估值与分析正典 (最标准化、最易蒸出高质量+CLI 化) — DCF (折现现金流: FCF 预测/WACC 折现率/terminal value 终值/Gordon growth vs exit multiple), Comparable Companies (可比公司/trading comps: EV/EBITDA, EV/Revenue, P/E), Precedent Transactions (先例交易/deal comps: control premium 控制权溢价), LBO (杠杆收购模型: IRR/MOIC/debt schedule/sources & uses), Accretion/Dilution (增厚/摊薄分析: EPS 影响、pro forma), Sum-of-the-Parts (分部估值/SOTP), Football Field (估值区间图), Merger Model (合并模型: synergies 协同/purchase accounting/goodwill), Sensitivity/scenario; (c) 交易流程与产出物 — 卖方流程 (sell-side: teaser 简介 → NDA → CIM/IM 信息备忘录 → management presentation → IOI 意向函 → data room 数据室 → LOI/term sheet → confirmatory diligence → SPA 买卖协议 → signing → closing), 买方流程 (buy-side: thesis/sourcing → outreach → valuation → bid → exclusivity → diligence → financing → close), auction 类型 (broad/targeted/negotiated/preemptive bid); 产出物: pitchbook 推介材料、CIM、fairness opinion 公平意见、board presentation、fee letter、engagement letter; (d) 交易结构与条款 — consideration (cash/stock/mix/earnout 对赌)、deal protections (breakup fee 分手费/go-shop/no-shop/MAC 重大不利变化条款)、representations & warranties 陈述与保证、escrow 托管、working capital adjustment 营运资金调整、reverse termination fee、collar 价格区间、tender offer vs merger、hostile vs friendly、defensive tactics (poison pill 毒丸/white knight 白衣骑士/staggered board); (e) 行业结构与角色 — bulge bracket (高盛/摩根士丹利/JPM/BofA/花旗) vs elite boutique (Centerview/Evercore/Moelis/Lazard/PJT/Perella) vs middle market (Houlihan Lokey/William Blair/Harris Williams) vs regional/independent; analyst→associate→VP→director→MD 晋升金字塔; coverage (行业组) vs product (M&A/ECM/DCM/leveraged finance/restructuring); sponsors group (服务 PE); 买方包括 PE/strategic acquirer/corp dev; (f) 量化指标与节奏 — deal fee (success fee 业内通常约 1-2% 视规模递减/retainer/Lehman formula)、league table 排行榜、pitch→mandate 转化、deal velocity、hours culture (analyst 80-100h/week 文化批判)、bonus/comp 结构、deal sheet (简历上的成交清单); (g) 争议/批判 — fairness opinion 是否橡皮图章 (利益冲突: 出意见的 banker 也收成交费)、estimate 的伪精确 (DCF garbage in garbage out、假设驱动结论)、banker 永远建议成交 (deal 偏见、empire building 助推 CEO 自利并购)、协同效应系统性高估 (大量并购毁灭价值、winner's curse 赢家诅咒)、analyst 血汗工厂文化 (2021 高盛 13 人 deck 事件、过劳死争议)、advisory 价值 vs 中介寻租之争、bulge vs boutique 的利益独立性叙事 (boutique 标榜「无承销利益冲突」)、SPAC 泡沫与 de-SPAC 教训; (h) 流派/思想谱系 — 估值学派 (Aswath Damodaran 估值教父/纽大、Tim Koller McKinsey《Valuation》、McKinsey valuation 体系) vs 公司金融教科书派 (Rosenbaum & Pearl《Investment Banking》行业圣经、Brealey Myers Allen、CFI/WSP/BIWS 培训体系) vs 交易实战派 (Bruce Wasserstein《Big Deal》、Joseph Perella/Felix Rohatyn 老派 dealmaker、现代 boutique 创始人) vs 行为/批判派 (并购毁灭价值的学术证据、Damodaran 对协同/控制权溢价的批判、Matt Levine《Money Stuff》解构华尔街逻辑) vs PE/buy-side 视角 (LBO 数学、value creation 杠杆/运营/multiple expansion)。不含: 二级市场股票交易/卖方研究 (equity research)、零售财富管理/private banking、纯 ECM/IPO 承销执行 (虽相关但聚焦 M&A advisory)、纯 PE 投后运营、量化交易/对冲基金策略、纯公司财务报表会计。) Master OS — automated mastery of 投行并购 / 交易撮合 (Investment Banking M&A / Dealmaking) — 面向并购顾问、企业融资、卖方/买方交易执行的职业认知操作系统，从业者(分析师 Analyst / 经理 Associate / 副总裁 VP / 董事 Director / 董事总经理 MD / 内部公司发展 Corp Dev / PE 投资人)、想入行者、以及服务这行(法律/会计/估值/咨询)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 投行 M&A 的核心世界观分歧: **价格 vs 价值 (price 是市场愿意付的, value 是内在的, deal 在两者缝隙里成交) ⇄ 确定性 vs 最高价 (certainty of close 对卖方常胜过纸面最高报价) ⇄ 顾问/中介 vs 委托代理 (banker 是 agent, 客户利益 vs 成交费的激励冲突真实存在, 「banker 总想成交」是行业原罪批判)**; 更深层 — 「过程/竞价纪律 (controlled auction 制造竞争张力、信息不对称管理) ⇄ 关系/信任 (rela

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。

临床诊断思维 (临床诊断思维 / 临床推理 (Clinical Diagnostic Reasoning) — 医生『怎么想病』的元学科:从症状/体征/检查到诊断结论的认知操作系统,从业者(临床医生/住院医/规培生,尤其全科/急诊/大内科等以未分化主诉为生的科室)、医学生与医学教育者、诊断安全与质量改进研究者、以及做医疗 AI 辅助诊断产品的人的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — **直觉模式识别 (System 1: illness scripts 疾病脚本 / pattern recognition / gestalt, 『资深人一眼认出 aunt Minnie』) ⇄ 分析性推理 (System 2: hypothetico-deductive 假设演绎 / Bayesian 概率更新)** 的 dual-process 双过程理论 (Kahneman→Croskerry/Norman 谱系), 资深≠更会分析而是『脚本库更大+校准更好』; 更深层论战 — **『认知去偏可教 (Croskerry: bias awareness / cognitive forcing strategies / diagnostic timeout) ⇄ 偏倚标签是马后炮、知识结构才是主因 (Norman/Sherbino/Monteiro: debiasing 干预 transfer 证据弱, bias 是 hindsight 标签)』** — 本行最核心学术对垒; 『概率思维 (验前概率 × 似然比 → 验后概率, Pauker-Kassirer test/treatment threshold 阈值模型) ⇄ 穷尽式排查 (rule-out everything / 防御性医疗 / VOMIT)』; 『临床 gestalt ⇄ 结构化临床决策规则 (Wells/PERC/HEART)』; 『诊断简约 Occam's razor ⇄ Hickam's dictum (病人可以同时得 N 个病)』; 『床旁体格检查复兴 (Verghese Stanford 25 / McGee 循证体检) ⇄ 影像检验替代床旁』; (b) 方法论正典 — illness script theory (Schmidt/Boshuizen: enabling conditions/fault/consequences 三段结构), problem representation + semantic qualifiers 问题表征与语义限定词 (Bowen NEJM 2006, 把病人翻成 one-liner), hypothetico-deductive model (Elstein 1978《Medical Problem Solving》: 早期假设生成+定向检验), Bayesian 工具箱 (sensitivity/specificity/LR/Fagan nomogram/SnNout-SpPin), threshold model (Pauker-Kassirer NEJM 1975/1980), 认知偏倚分类学 (anchoring/premature closure/availability/confirmation/base-rate neglect/search satisficing/diagnostic momentum — Croskerry 偏倚清单), 去偏与元认知策略 (diagnostic timeout/cognitive forcing/Ely checklist/calibration), schema-based reasoning (Clinical Problem Solvers schemas: 按 pivot 症状走分支), reflective practice 结构化反思 (Mamede/Schmidt), 诊断错误科学 (NAM 2015 报告定义 / Newman-Toker Big Three / Hardeep Singh e-triggers / SAFER Dx 框架); (c) 行业结构与角色 — 医学生→实习/住院医 (晨会 morning report/查房被 pimping/汇报训练)→主治 attending→master clinician (NEJM CPC discussant/晨会大师如 Dhaliwal); 配套生态: 医学教育者 (clinical reasoning curriculum + 评估: script concordance test/key features exam/OSCE), 诊断安全研究者 (SIDM/AHRQ), 诊断辅助与 CDS 工具开发者 (DDx generator/AI); (d) 核心工作流 — 数据采集 (病史为王 + 循证体检 + 针对性检验影像) → 问题表征 (one-liner + semantic qualifiers) → 鉴别诊断生成 (schema / 解剖定位法 / VINDICATE-M 病因筛, 按『常见可能 × 致命不能漏 can't-miss』双轴排序) → 假设定向检验 (按 LR 选检查 / 阈值决策) → working diagnosis + 安全网 (red flags 交代 / test of time / test of treatment) → 反馈校准 (follow-up / M&M / diagnostic timeout); 教学工作流: 晨会渐进披露汇报 / CPC / SNAPPS / one-minute preceptor / virtual morning report; AI 增强工作流 (2023-2026: LLM 鉴别诊断头脑风暴 / OpenEvidence 检索 / ambient scribe 释放认知带宽 + 自动化偏倚 guardrails); (e) 产出物 — one-liner, problem list, prioritized DDx, assessment & plan (按问题分层), 晨会/CPC 汇报, M&M 复盘, 诊断不确定性沟通 (『最可能是 X, 但出现 Y 红旗立刻回来』); (f) 教育与评估 — script concordance test / key feature exam / EPA / 里程碑; 中国语境: 人卫《诊断学》教材 / 执业医师考试 / 规培结业临床思维考核; (g) 争议/批判 — debiasing 之争 (Croskerry vs Norman-Sherbino『knowledge is the cure』, 去偏 RCT 效果弱 / bias 标签不可证伪), 诊断错误率数字之争 (『10-15%』经典估计 / Newman-Toker 79.5 万美国年严重伤害外推方法被质疑 / 尸检符合率), dual-process 二分被批过度简化 (连续谱 / 难以实证分离), 决策规则 vs gestalt (资深 gestalt 常不输 Wells 类规则 / 算法厌恶), vignette 研究外推性 + context/case specificity (推理高度内容绑定不可通用迁移 [Norman/Eva] — 对『教推理通用课』产业的根本批判), AI 辅助诊断 2023-2026 (GPT-4 在 NEJM CPC/vignette 追平或超医生 [Kanjee 2023 JAMA / Goh 2024 JAMA Netw Open『AI alone > physician+AI』悖论] / Google AMIE / OpenEvidence 爆发 vs 自动化偏倚 / 去技能化 / 真实环境验证缺失), 防御性医疗与过度检查 (incidentaloma 瀑布 / VOMIT), 体检衰亡之争, pimping 教学法争议; (h) 流派/思想谱系 — 决策科学/Bayesian 派 (Ledley-Lusted 1959 → Elstein/Kassirer/Sox/Pauker/Eddy → Brush) vs 认知心理/双过程派 (Kahneman-Tversky → Croskerry/Graber) vs 教育认知派 (Schmidt/Boshuizen illness scripts → Norman/Eva/Mamede/Durning 情境认知) vs 诊断安全/系统派 (NAM 2015 / Newman-Toker / Hardeep Singh / Graber-SIDM: 错误=系统×认知共因) vs 床旁临床派 (Osler 传统 → Tierney aphorisms / Verghese / McGee / Dhaliwal / Saint: 病史体检为王 + 刻意练习) vs AI/计算派 (INTERNIST-1/DXplain 专家系统 → Isabel → LLM 世代 Rodman/Topol)。不含: 具体专科治疗方案与手术决策深度 (足踝外科/种植牙等另有 skill), 中医辨证 (另有 skill), EBM 文献批判性评价方法学 (相关但本 skill 聚焦诊断推理本身), 护理诊断体系 (NANDA), 影像/病理知觉型读片训练 (相邻但独立), 精神科 DSM 结构化访谈细节, 医患沟通技巧全集 (只覆盖诊断不确定性沟通), 患者自查/自我诊断指

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。

GitHub 解封 — 账号封禁/限制/恢复的领域操作系统。覆盖：(a) GitHub 官方政策体系 (TOS / 可接受使用政策 / Trust & Safety 执行模式 / 公开申诉路径 / 受制裁地区解读)；(b) 封号原因诊断学 (spam / abuse / 制裁误标 / 2FA 丢失 / ToS 违规 / 账号劫持误判 / ban evasion 等子类型 + 症状→原因映射 + 自我分诊压测)；(c) 申诉实操 craft (写一封能让 T&S 快速判误伤的英文申诉信 + 升级阶梯 + 法务介入边界 + Don'ts)；(d) 制裁与合规硬边界 (OFAC SDN 名单 / 哪些国家或地区真不可达 / VPN 误判路径 / 中国大陆不是美国制裁地区的反复重申)；(e) 中国大陆开发者特别处境 (sanctioned region 误标 + SMS 验证不支持 +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab 备用迁移 + 私有自托管 Gitea/Forgejo)；(f) 真实案例库 (~30+ 公开案例分类拆解：误伤 / 真违规 / 制裁误标三类各自赔率与申诉成功路径)。伦理锚绝不软化：不教 ban evasion / 不教撒谎式申诉 / 真违规承认改进 / 丢 2FA 无恢复因子则诚实告知 / 中国制裁误标靠申诉不靠换 VPN / 申诉 6 个月窗口必算清 / 约 3% (业内估) 真违规恢复 vs 约 79% (业内估) 误伤申诉成功率分层标。 (GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: false-positive / genuine violation / sanctions mis-flag, each with win-rate and appeal success path). Ethical anchors absolutely not softened: do NOT teach ban evasion (creating new accounts turns a temp ban into a permanent one — the single biggest mistake); do NOT teach social engineering or lying in appeals (misuse + actually confirms violation); genuine violations: admit + improve beats denial; lost 2FA + no recovery factor → do not pretend recovery is possible; China sanctioned-region mis-flag → fix via appeal, not repeated VPN switching; appeal form 6-month window must be counted carefully; historical 约 3% (业内估) genuine-violation recovery vs 约 79% (业内估) false-positive appeal success rate stratification must be honestly labeled. Anti-samples (explicitly describe harm, never endorse): developer permabanned for ban evasion / open-source team org-banned for personal attacks in public issues / cases where repeated VPN switching escalated risk-control severity.) Master OS — automated mastery of GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: fa

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 operating peky from the CLI or TUI, especially for AI agents who need reliable, low-error procedures. Covers how to target sessions/panes correctly, use scopes, avoid confirmation prompts, and keep CLI/TUI/daemon in sync.

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。

Run an opt-in deep codebase audit with persisted findings. Confirm cost before dispatch; filing and telemetry need separate 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。

Daily repo hygiene — review the day's repo state, then perform the cleanups under per-action confirmation. Fast-forward only, never destructive without a yes.

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。

Fix a confirmed bug: a failing regression test first, then a minimal fix, then the rest of the tdd gates.

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。

Clean up an already-merged local branch after proving containment. Confirm each discard and preserve unique work.

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。

Clean up an already-merged local branch after proving containment. Confirm each discard and preserve unique work.

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。

Run an opt-in deep codebase audit with persisted findings. Confirm cost before dispatch; filing and telemetry need separate 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。

Analyze one or more cycling, running, or hiking FIT/KML activity tracks, generate evidence-based single or aggregate reports, open the bundled local Ride Relief report page when the environment supports it, enrich results with user-confirmed public location context, and create shareable PNG or H.264 MP4 route stories on request. Use whenever a user wants to analyze, compare, visualize, or export .fit or .kml activities, including requests that mention a workout but do not yet include track files.

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 system feedback for user actions including confirmations, status updates, and notifications.

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 the user invokes /commit or asks to commit changes, after a code review has been completed and the changes are confirmed ready to stage and commit to git.

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 asked to take over, adopt, or babysit a GitHub pull request until it merges — read review feedback, fix it, resolve threads, dismiss unreasonable change requests, and merge once approved and green. Picks between driving the PR live in this session or handing it to the Looper daemon for unattended background runs, confirming with the user when unclear. Triggers on "take over this PR", "接管这个 PR", "持续修复 review 直到合并", or a Looper takeover bot comment. Works in any coding agent (Claude Code, Codex, opencode, Gemini, …) using gh + git.

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 the user asks to audit what's wrong with a project, "make it right", "看看项目出了什么问题", "为什么用户的需求还没上线", "为什么没提交App Store", "为什么没新build", or wants a holistic state-of-the-project check covering unmerged branches, stalled PRs, failed GitHub Actions, stale builds, plan drift (TODOS.md / ROADMAP), unreleased commits, and log errors. Runs read-only investigation, presents a grouped checklist, fixes only after explicit user confirmation. Aware of the Cathier iOS app workflow (Xcode + fastlane + auto-merge @claude PRs from in-app feedback).

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。

Suede Labs skill that lints a local music or media release folder and scores it for release readiness: missing files, weak or malformed metadata, artwork and stem problems, split gaps, rights blockers, and platform-delivery issues, produced by a bundled offline script as a scored markdown and JSON report. Use when a creator has one or more release folders of tracks, artwork, and stems and wants to know what is missing before distributing, delivering, or handing it off; when metadata quality or a delivery rejection is the question; or when a release-readiness score is asked for. Reports what is present, missing, or unknown; never upgrades unknown to confirmed and never means legal clearance. NOT FOR: organizing the evidence behind a rights or split gap the report surfaces (use suede-rights-audit); building the transfer package (use suede-rights-passport); a sync one-sheet (use suede-sync-packaging).

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。

Suede-affiliated Amazon money-recovery audit for restocking fees, short or denied refunds, and Amazon-billed subscriptions. Use when the user mentions a restocking fee, a short or denied Amazon refund, or a forgotten Prime Video Channel, Audible, Kindle Unlimited, or Prime charge, or asks whether Amazon still owes or bills them. Read-only discovery; no chat, cancellation, or dispute without the account owner's per-item confirmation, and never a promise of recovery. Requires an authenticated Claude in Chrome session. NOT FOR: bank chargebacks, marketplace A-to-z seller claims, price-protection claims, or subscriptions billed outside Amazon (use subscription-recovery).

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。