793 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Low-ceremony workflow for trivial, low-risk changes: typos, comments, CSS/styling tweaks, string changes, single-line fixes with no logic impact. Use to avoid the overhead of the full feature workflow when the change cannot break anything. If during the fix the change turns out to touch logic, security, config, or schema, stop and escalate to the feature-workflow skill.
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。
案件预算和持续的 WIP/偏差监控。在案件设立时构建分阶段费用估算，按法域或工作流运行自下而上预算，计算应急准备金，并构建 AFA 安排（固定费用、上限费用、分阶段固定费用）。持续监控：对照预算的 WIP 跟踪、比例性评估（支出与进度）、带根本原因分析的偏差评述、完成预测、变现率监控、核销分析。触发词：'build a budget'、'fee estimate'、'what will this cost'、'WIP review'、'budget vs actual'、'how are we tracking against budget'、'we're over budget'、'realisation is poor'、'what's our ETC'、'budget for the German workstream'、'model the financial impact of this scope change'、'draft a fee adjustment'、'write-off analysis'、'how much contingency'、'AFA structure'、'fixed fee estimate'、'budget update'、'forecast to complete'。
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。
Produces neutral, section-pinned U.S. legislative bill summaries translating statutory language into plain terms with identifying data, provisions, fiscal impacts, and controversy. Use when summarizing bills, analyzing proposed legislation, preparing bill briefs, digesting committee reports or fiscal notes, or writing legislative updates.
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。
Summarizes cybersecurity breach incidents into structured legal and compliance records. Trigger when synthesizing incident reports, forensics, logs, or notifications into a defensible chronology, scope-impact analysis, response ledger, or regulatory-risk assessment. Keywords: data breach, incident response, unauthorized access, ransomware, exfiltration, GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA.
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。
Produces structured U.S. legal audit summaries that distill compliance findings into executive-ready risk prioritization and remediation plans, covering likelihood/impact scoring, consequence analysis, and corrective actions with timelines and owners. Use for legal audits, compliance audits, regulatory audits, compliance gap analyses, risk assessments, audit report summaries, or remediation roadmaps. Trigger keywords: audit summary, compliance findings, audit report, risk prioritization, remediation plan, regulatory exposure, corrective action plan.
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 the "Interest of Amicus Curiae" section of an amicus brief. Establishes institutional credibility, tethers the amicus's interest to the specific legal question, articulates non-party impacts, and embeds disclosure guardrails under FRAP 29 and Supreme Court Rule 37. Trigger when drafting amicus briefs, friend-of-the-court filings, interest statements, amicus disclosures, or when the user asks why an organization belongs in a case.
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。
欧盟 AI 法案知识引擎——以 70 份官方欧盟来源文件为基础的权威监管问答（包括 2026 年委员会关于 Art. 6 高风险分类的指南草稿——一般原则、附件 I、附件 III）。基于完整条例文本、委员会指南、EDPB/EDPS 意见、《实践守则》、协调标准、FRIA 指南、事件模板和行业特定指引，以条款级引用回答关于 AI 法案的任何问题。当用户询问"EU AI Act"、"AI Act regulation"、"Regulation 2024/1689"、"KI-Verordnung"、要求"explain an AI Act article"、"what does Article X say"、"AI Act requirements"、"AI Act penalties"、"AI Act timeline"、"GPAI obligations"、"high-risk AI"、"prohibited AI practices"、"AI Act and GDPR"、"fundamental rights impact assessment"、"AI Act standards"、"AI Act national implementation"、"AI literacy"、"serious incident reporting"、"Digital Omnibus"、"AI regulatory sandbox"，或任何关于欧盟人工智能监管的问题时，应使用本技能。德语术语同样触发："KI-Gesetz"、"KI-Verordnung"、"Hochrisiko-KI"、"KI-Kompetenz"、"Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung"、"GPAI-Verhaltenskodex"。对于产出分类决定而非知识答案的评估工作流，提议在会话内运行结构化风险等级分类。
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 randomized controlled trials for causal inference. Use when user mentions: randomized evaluation, RCT, field experiment, randomized experiment, treatment assignment, causal impact, experimental design, control group, intervention evaluation.
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。
Recommends ACTH stimulation during AVS to improve success rate of bilateral selective catheterization, acknowledging unclear impact on diagnostic accuracy for laterality. Triggers include when setting up AVS and asking 'Should I administer ACTH?' or considering procedural optimization.
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。
First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.
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 for prioritization, or when there are more tasks than capacity: "what should we do first?", "rank this backlog", "cut scope for the MVP", "RICE score these". Picks a method (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, impact-effort), scores items and sets a cut line. Skip for choosing between two designs.
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。
Expert-level transportation engineering covering highway design, traffic flow, intersection design, pavement design, traffic impact studies, and public transit.
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。
Perform a structured code review using change detection and impact
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 wants to know what will break if they change something, or needs safety analysis before editing code. Examples: "Is it safe to change X?", "What depends on this?", "What will break?"
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 BEFORE writing any test — enumerate cases per behavior (happy / boundary / error / abuse), prioritize by likelihood × impact, cross-check via subagent — even if the user just says 'add tests'.
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 ranking competing initiatives for a roadmap, breaking a tie between two features, or auditing a backlog for hidden low-value work via Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort.
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。
When shaping feedback — situation-behavior-impact, growth-vs-corrective split, cadence design, ladder-of-inference checks. Triggers on 'how do I give this feedback', 'perf review shape'.
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。
Consulte o banco de dados de grafo de código para entender relacionamentos de componentes, dependências e impacto de mudanças. Use quando o usuário pedir para "encontrar chamadores", "verificar dependências", "o que usa isso", "mostrar relacionamentos", "encontrar serializadores", ou ao ler código e precisar entender o que depende de um componente antes de fazer modificações.
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 wants to know what will break if they change something, or needs safety analysis before editing code. Examples: "Is it safe to change X?", "What depends on this?", "What will break?"
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。
Load this skill whenever you are filing, reviewing, or generating accessibility bug reports — whether from automated tool output, manual testing, user reports, or testing with disabled people. The purpose of this skill is to make accessibility findings easier to report accurately, connect them to real people and tasks, and let developers reproduce, understand, and fix them without unnecessary back-and-forth. Absolutely always describe the barrier and its task impact before citing a WCAG criterion. Under no circumstances guess a disability diagnosis, treat automated tool output as a conformance conclusion, or expose secrets/personal data in a report.
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 & Debug] Use when you need to investigate and explain how existing features or logic work. Flag: --mode=explain produces a one-way developer-narrative explanation (Purpose → How → Why → Impact) tuned by coding level; use /understand for the standalone prompt-driven explainer.
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。
[Planning] Use when the user provides an implementation plan file and asks to analyze it, assess impact, update specifications, or verify planned 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。
[Documentation] Use when updating impacted documentation after code, spec, or test 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。
Master orchestration for repository governance, North Star impact, sub-Star boundaries, and repair-first or evidence-first drift checks. Guides an agent through the complete lifecycle of making architectural decisions, documenting them, writing FAQs, and cleaning up stale plans while adhering strictly to repo ethics and brand tone. Use whenever you need to make a structural change, write an ADR, update the doc lattice, or govern repository architecture.
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。