「challenge」の検索結果

Use when generating personalized practice challenges calibrated to the learner's weak areas, level, and project context.

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 cash forecast (spreadsheet, model export, pasted table or the narrative that accompanies it) and returns a DRAFT assumptions sheet: every assumption the forecast rests on, stated or implied by the figures, with its value as read, its location in the model, the cash lines it drives, its stated source or "not stated", the evidence that would test it, an owner, and one neutral challenge question, so a reviewer can work through the assumptions one by one. Use when the user asks to "list the assumptions behind this cash forecast", "what is this cash flow forecast assuming", "prepare the challenge questions for the treasury review", "pull out the drivers of the 13-week cash forecast" or "build an assumptions register for the liquidity plan". Do not use for actuals against budget by line, use budget-variance-explainer instead; do not use for the case behind a capital request, use capex-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。

Use for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.

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 Domain-Driven Design modeling sessions based on DDD Distilled (Vaughn Vernon) and Domain Modeling Made Functional (Scott Wlaschin). Guides users through strategic and tactical design via 13 phases: discover, storming, contexts, mapping, aggregates, events, validate, glossary, workflows, types, simulate, publish, sync. Phase 13 (sync) reconciles divergences found by --analyze between the domain model and the implementation — judging whether the model or the code is authoritative, then planning and implementing the fix and re-aligning the model. Phases 9-11 take the conceptual model from phases 1-8 and produce workflow pipeline designs, compilable type definitions (TypeScript, Kotlin, Scala, Rust, C#, F#), workflow verification via type-level tests, and automatic UI field enumeration from the domain model. Phase 12 (publish) renders all docs/domain artifacts into one self-contained, cross-linked HTML site (separate files joined by a shared nav). Each phase is an interactive dialogue where AI acts as facilitator and domain expert challenger. Use when: "DDD", "ドメイン設計", "ドメインモデリング", "Event Storming", "Bounded Context", "集約設計", "ユビキタス言語", "コンテキストマップ", "ワークフロー設計", "パイプライン設計", "ステップ分割", "中間型", "型駆動フロー", "型駆動設計", "Domain Modeling Made Functional", "Railway Oriented Programming", "入力画面項目", "フォーム項目洗い出し", "UI 項目抽出", "HTMLにまとめる", "ドキュメントサイト化", "成果物を1つのHTMLに", "publish", "モデルと実装の差異", "差異解消", "実装との乖離", "モデルとコードを一致", "差異の実装計画", "sync", "複数フェーズを逐次実行", "フェーズをまとめて実行", "/ddd run", "サブコマンド一覧", "/ddd list", "/ddd", "ドメイン分析したい", "モデリングしたい", or any domain design / type modeling activity.

Structured 3-phase peer review of a diff or PR — intent, issues by severity, then pointed merge-readiness questions and a verdict. Use for general code review. Not for AI workflow self-fix-and-edit (ai-systems-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate threat models (adversarial-challenge). Phase 3 asks questions only; it is not the adversarial-challenge 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。

Hostile self-review of recently written AI workflow code that then applies fixes (agents, tools, chat context, summarization, tokens, attachments). Use after generating AI systems code, or when asked to self-review and harden it. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate attacks (adversarial-challenge). Prefer: adversarial-challenge → decide → this 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。

Capture The Flag challenge solving — reverse engineering, steganography, forensics, crypto, web exploitation, binary exploitation, OSINT. Pattern recipes for fast triage and direct exploitation.

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。

Working Backwards PRFAQ challenge to forge product concepts. Use when the user requests to 'create a PRFAQ', 'work backwards', or 'run the PRFAQ challenge'.

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。

Runs Scenic probabilistic scenarios against a running CARLA server with the `scenic FILE --simulate --2d` CLI — the carlaChallenge1-10 traffic scenarios shipped by ScenarioRunner (`model srunner.scenic.models.model`) and by Scenic itself (`model scenic.simulators.carla.model`) — bounding the run, sampling scenes headlessly first to tell a map problem from a syntax problem, and restoring the world afterwards. Use when the user asks to "run a Scenic scenario", "run carlaChallenge", "test a .scenic file", "scenic --simulate", or reports a Scenic scenario that rejects every sample or cannot find blueprints.

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。

App Store Connect API (REST) リファレンス。JWT 認証、API キー作成・失効、 Apps, Builds, Bundle IDs, Certificates, Devices, Provisioning Profiles, Users。 TestFlight Beta Groups / Testers / App Review。In-App Purchases, Subscriptions, Subscription Groups, Promotional Offers, App Price Points, Sales Reports。アプリ配布。 Sandbox Testers, User Invitations, Merchant IDs, Pass Type IDs, Bundle ID Capabilities。 Webhooks / Webhook Events / Deliveries、Xcode Cloud (Workflows, Build Runs, Artifacts)、 Alternative Distribution (EU マーケットプレイス / Web Distribution)、 Game Center (Achievements, Leaderboards, Challenges)、Analytics / 診断レポート。

Shakes your mental models with critical rigor, challenges assumptions, exposes blind spots, and provides multi-perspective insights as a strict thinking mentor. Deliberately breaks format conventions to stimulate genuine cognitive discomfort. Use when you want to stress-test an idea, shake your mental model, ask to challenge my assumptions, find blind spots, deepen my thinking, or request critical review with phrases like yusaburi or what do you think of this 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。

OpenAI Codex CLI wrapper — three modes. Code review: independent diff review via codex review with pass/fail gate. Challenge: adversarial mode that tries to break your code. Consult: ask codex anything with session continuity for follow-ups. The "200 IQ autistic developer" second opinion. Use when asked to "codex review", "codex challenge", "ask codex", "second opinion", or "consult codex". (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "code x", "code ex", "get another opinion".

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。

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

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。

This skill should be used when the user wants to "stress-test a design", "challenge an idea", "red team a proposal", "get critical feedback on a design", "validate a design", "adversarial architecture review", "risk assessment", "設計を検証して", "反論をもらいたい", "設計を批判的にレビュー", "デビルズアドボケート", "ストレステスト", "弱点を指摘して", "穴を見つけて", "この設計で良いか", "リスク評価", "設計のアーキテクチャレビュー", or mentions structured adversarial review of a proposal or design. NOTE: Use this for validating PROPOSALS and DESIGNS through adversarial debate, NOT for generic code review, PR review, or normal review requests (use /codex:review or /codex:adversarial-review for those). Also NOT for investigating unknown bugs (use /agent-dialectics:strong-inference for that).

自社の強みや顧客像を基に、比較すべき競合と調査先を選びます。直接競合・周辺競合・目標となる企業に分類し、根拠付きの候補一覧を作って詳しい比較の準備を整えます。

• 競合比較の対象を決めたいとき
• 直接競合・周辺競合・目標企業の分類
• 市場調査レポートの候補を絞りたいとき

Use when asked to review a plan, challenge a proposal, run a CEO review, poke holes in an approach, think bigger about scope, or decide whether to expand or reduce the 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。

Comprehensive Flow Nexus platform management - authentication, sandboxes, app deployment, payments, and challenges

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。

Test a product concept with Amazon's Working Backwards method: write the press release for the finished product first, then answer hard customer and stakeholder questions, ending in a complete PRFAQ document. Use when the user requests to 'create a PRFAQ', 'work backwards', or 'run the PRFAQ challenge'

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。

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 8 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, three-way literature scan, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, WHY HOW WHAT papers, 3W literature scan, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 三段式文獻掃描, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題, 심층 연구, 문헌 조사, 체계적 문헌고찰, 메타분석, 사실 확인, 연구 방향을 잡아줘, 연구 주제 정하는 것을 도와줘, revisión de literatura, metaanálisis

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。

Structures a multi-perspective council exercise for decisions, research trade-offs, and creative challenges. Simulates thinking archetypes, separates evidence from assumptions and values, and synthesizes a conditional recommendation. Use when the user requests a council, panel, devil's advocate analysis, "mind council", or deliberate comparison of perspectives on a difficult choice.

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。

Autonomous agents are AI systems that can independently decompose goals, plan actions, execute tools, and self-correct without constant human guidance. The challenge isn't making them capable - it's making them reliable. Every extra decision multiplies failure probability.

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。

Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for Linux credential artifacts, service tokens, SSH material, cloud and container secrets, socket-level trust, and host-to-host pivot chains. Use when the user asks to trace Linux auth artifacts, accepted token or key replay, socket or service-account trust edges, sudo or capability abuse, or explain lateral movement across Linux challenge nodes. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.

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。

Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for crypto, encoding, steganography, APK, IPA, and mobile trust-boundary challenges. Use when the user asks to decode a blob, recover a transform chain or key, inspect hidden media payloads, hook an APK or IPA signer, inspect app storage, or replay mobile request-signing logic. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.

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。

Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for CTF web, API, SSR, frontend, queue-backed app, and routing challenges. Use when the user asks to inspect a site or API, follow real browser requests, debug auth or session flow, trace uploads or workers, find hidden routes, or explain why frontend and backend behavior diverge under sandbox-internal routing. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.

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。