「council」の検索結果

Compare independent opinions from several models or contexts without inflating agreement. Use when: wanting a second opinion or debate, or summarizing several reviewers' results.

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。

Deep creative exploration engine. Competing perspectives, stress-tested by a 4-persona council, scored by integrity. The approach that survives attack wins — not the one that sounds best.

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。

United Arab Emirates Governance, Risk & Compliance advisor — a jurisdiction-first compliance router. In the UAE, WHERE an organization sits determines its law: mainland (Federal PDPL, Decree-Law 45/2021 — executive regulations still pending), DIFC (DP Law No. 5 of 2020 as amended 2025, with a private right of action), ADGM (DP Regulations 2021), CBUAE-licensed financial institutions (consumer-data residency, outsourcing approvals), healthcare (ICT Health Law data localization), and government/CNI (UAE IA Regulation, Cyber Security Council; Dubai ISR, ADHICS). Use for any UAE / Dubai / Abu Dhabi / Emirates compliance question: UAE data protection, DIFC or ADGM privacy, free-zone vs mainland obligations, health-data residency, CBUAE cyber and outsourcing rules, market entry ("expanding to the UAE"), breach notification, gap assessments, and mapping UAE requirements to ISO 27001 / NIST CSF / SOC 2. Trigger for any UAE privacy, cybersecurity, or regulatory question even if no framework is named.

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。

Multi-perspective deliberation framework for complex scientific questions

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。

Screen a client, counterparty, payer or corporate against the sanctions lists published by the designating authorities themselves — the UK Sanctions List (FCDO), OFSI, the UN Security Council, the EU consolidated list and OFAC's SDN and non-SDN lists. Use when onboarding, before taking a payment, before completing a transaction, or whenever a name must be checked against sanctions. Produces candidates and provenance, never a clearance: the record names every list searched with its publication date and count, states what was NOT searched, and ends at a blank decision block. Fails closed — a cache that is missing, damaged, truncated or stale is reported NOT SEARCHED and the process exits non-zero, so nothing can read an incomplete run as clean. Matches across transliteration, diacritics, homoglyphs and initials, because nobody spells a name the way the publisher does. Standard library only; screening opens no network connection.

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。

Assess compliance with the EU General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice under the AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689). Use when asked to determine GPAI model provider obligations, assess Code of Practice compliance, evaluate transparency or copyright requirements for GPAI models, check systemic risk obligations, build a GPAI compliance roadmap, or prepare for AI Office requests. Covers all three Code chapters (Transparency, Copyright, Safety & Security), the 12 commitments and their measures, systemic risk classification (Article 51), provider obligations (Articles 53 and 55), open-source exemptions, enforcement timeline, Commission/AI Office supervision, and DACH-specific overlays such as BSI cybersecurity and works council implications. Triggers on phrases like "GPAI compliance", "Code of Practice assessment", "GPAI model obligations", "systemic risk evaluation", "AI Act transparency requirements", "GPAI copyright policy", "general-purpose AI compliance".

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。

Classify AI systems under the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) and determine compliance obligations. Use when asked to assess AI risk level, check if an AI system is prohibited, determine high-risk status, identify GPAI model obligations, map provider/deployer responsibilities, or build an AI Act compliance roadmap. Covers the full classification decision tree (Prohibited → High-Risk → Limited → Minimal → GPAI), obligations by role (provider, deployer, importer, distributor), compliance timelines, and DACH-specific considerations (German works council, BaFin, BSI, BNetzA). Triggers on phrases like "classify this AI system", "is this high-risk under the AI Act", "AI Act risk assessment", "EU AI Act compliance", "prohibited AI practice", "GPAI obligations", "AI Act timeline".

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。

多智能体团队管理。创建、查看、修改、删除 CountBot 的多智能体团队，管理团队成员（角色）和团队级自定义模型配置。当用户要新建 Pipeline/Graph/Council 团队、调整成员分工、修改依赖关系、开关技能系统、设置团队专属模型时使用。

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。

Pre/post dev toolbox — named bundles of skills/agents loaded before development work and councils of experts invoked after. Run /toolbox or the toolbox.py CLI to list, activate, initialize, export, import, and validate toolboxes. Invoke at the start or end of a dev session, when setting up a new repo, or when sharing toolboxes with a team.

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。

Compare independent opinions from several models or contexts without inflating agreement. Use when: wanting a second opinion or debate, or summarizing several reviewers' results.

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。

Convenes a multi-LLM expert panel to pressure-test hard-to-reverse decisions. Use when reversibility score is low and adversarial review is warranted.

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 needing strategic project analysis from multiple independent expert perspectives. Triggers on business decisions, growth strategy, product direction, competitive analysis, or any situation where diverse C-level opinions reduce blind spots

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。

Defines God Committee member behavior and responsibilities with oversight authority. Use when operating as a committee member. Triggers on: god committee, committee observation, council discussion.

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 marketing deliberation that applies documented public frameworks through clearly labeled simulated advisors, surfaces disagreements, and synthesizes a decision. Use when the user wants multiple expert lenses on one bounded marketing question. NOT FOR: factual claims about a living person's private views, primary research (use suede-customer-research), or executing the selected tactic (route to the relevant public Suede 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。

Design well-structured agent loops with best-practice coaching and cross-model review gates before you run them. Use when the user wants to design, build, or set up an agent loop, iterative agent workflow, self-review loop, LLM-as-judge loop, multi-model council, reviewer/judge gate, or goal-driven looping process. Guides goal refinement, typed verification criteria, reviewer/judge selection, privacy boundaries, termination guards, and observability, then emits a RUN_IN_SESSION.md handoff prompt plus portable loop.yaml, loop.resolved.json, LOOP.md, and run-loop.py.

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 structured software specifications for features, bug fixes, and products. Use when the user wants to create a spec, PRD, feature brief, requirements document, or when starting any new implementation that needs a specification first. Invoke via /spec-writer or when the user says "write a spec", "spec this out", "create a spec", "I need a spec for...", or describes a feature they want to build. Produces adaptive-complexity specs with Job Stories, Gherkin acceptance criteria, and three-tier boundaries. Output is a markdown file ready for agent execution or human review.

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。

Map testable surfaces, audit existing tests for quality, and write test specifications that prevent AI shortcuts. Use when asked to "audit tests", "specify tests", "test architect", "map test coverage", or invoke /test-architect. Two modes — audit (evaluate existing tests against Beck's principles) and specify (write test specs for new code). Powered by Carmack × Beck quality-testing.md reference doc. Stack: Next.js App Router / TypeScript / Vitest / Cypress / tRPC / Prisma / Neon.

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。

Orchestrate multi-LLM parallel debate and synthesis. Dispatches prompts to available omega CLI wrappers in parallel, collects independent responses, runs anonymized peer review ranking, and synthesizes via a chairman model. Supports collaboration templates, idle watchdog, inter-agent messaging, worktree isolation, and multi-turn sessions. No server required.

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 independent proposals on a contested decision need cross-critique before choosing, reusing the original authors. Not for parallel multi-stance investigation: use council.

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 orchestrating implementer/judge subagents — form gate + nine modes (do-and-judge ±two-stage, steps/parallel/worktrees, competitively, debate, live-app-judge, adversarial-council).

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 authoring or rewriting a roadmap in agents/roadmaps/ — phases, goal, acceptance criteria, council notes; fires even on 'write a plan for X' / 'draft a roadmap'.

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 polling external AIs (OpenAI, Anthropic) outside the host session for a neutral second opinion on a roadmap, diff, prompt, or file set — or 'cross-check with another model'.

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 a two-agent proxy approval council for autonomous sprint gates. Use when a sprint needs delegated approval for human gates such as deploy, live mutation, push, cleanup, skip, or shortened watch decisions, while requiring two independent agents to reach consensus that the human principal would approve under written policy and preferences.

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。

[Decision Support] Use when pressure-testing irreversible, high-stakes decisions with adversarial AI advisors.

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。