「greed」の検索結果

Write the spec before the code, then check the built thing against it — so agents build what was agreed, not what they invented.

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 algorithms and complexity theory covering sorting, searching, graph algorithms, dynamic programming, greedy algorithms, NP-completeness, and algorithm design paradigms.

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。

Read the project's knowledge record before answering from memory or from the files. Use before answering about the project's state, a number, a date, a decision, a source, a deadline or what was agreed - even a casual 'what's the situation with X' or 'is that quote still current'; before changing a recorded value; and whenever the opener or a grounding line names entries. After finding relevant IDs, prefer kpop context to read them with their declared dependencies and checks. Uses pull for concise readings or when the checked reader is unavailable, affects for changed inputs, and search when no ID is known. A missing id is not absence. Not for showing the record's page (the hub skill). Requests come in any language.

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 existing materials into a first knowledge record, or investigate a subject's history in depth. Use whenever the user asks to map, survey, go through, reconstruct or investigate what already exists - folders of documents, decision records, meeting notes, emails, exports, code - or wants a starting record built from existing materials, even when the word 'record' is never said: consult this before listing or reading the files yourself, because a map has an agreed scope, a protocol and a report. Also, once, at a suitable moment, to offer the starting choices where a workspace has no record and the work is clearly ongoing - never on a greeting. Learning while working needs no map. Requests come in any language.

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。

Govern the SemVer release process — versioning discipline, tag-based GitHub releases, changelog hygiene, and the ADR that confirms the release strategy is agreed. Trigger when setting up a release process, before a first public release, or when release practice has become inconsistent. Owned by delivery-orchestrator.

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。

Pursue an agreed goal to a working outcome without waiting: decompose it, re-prioritise as evidence arrives, branch, gate, get an independent review (a different model or a fresh reviewer subagent — the writer never approves), merge, prune, and bank the operator's decisions in STATUS.md instead of blocking on them. Trigger on "get it done", "don't wait for me", "proceed autonomously", or when an epic or roadmap objective is handed over. Not a close-out: this work set is expected to grow.

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 independent review/redteam followed by peer collaboration to produce a consensus superset of findings and enumerated revision requests. Use when Codex 5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 should first critique a matter independently, then exchange work, synthesize the best combined analysis, and finish with a single agreed revision list.

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。

Turn a wireframe and everything already agreed into a written spec in traditional agile shape — an initiative broken into epics, epics into user stories with acceptance criteria, and themes as the labels that span them — presented as an interactive drill-down tree the user prunes, edits and annotates in the browser, with a plain-markdown spec generated from it. Use when the user wants a spec, an initiative or epic broken into user stories, acceptance criteria, to formalise what a wireframe or mockup does, or to review and edit a spec visually.

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。

Writes a DRAFT weekly KPI report from the figures the user pastes or attaches (this week, last week, optionally target and earlier weeks): a metrics table with change versus last week computed only from the stated figures, plain-language notes per metric, and numbered questions on every figure that moved more than the agreed threshold, crossed its target or broke its run. Use when the user asks to "write the weekly KPI report", "turn these numbers into this week's metrics report", "what changed versus last week", "draft the Monday numbers update" or "add commentary to this metrics table". Do not use for a recurring emailed report with a maintained trend sheet, use report-attachment-analyzer instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer. 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 training survey responses and manager notes into a DRAFT training needs report by role: coded needs with record counts per role (n of N), the evidence type behind each count, anonymised quotes cited to record codes, disagreements between what staff report and what managers observe, gaps where a role is under-represented or a required skill has no evidence, and follow-up questions to settle before any course is designed. Never rates an individual, ranks a team or turns a count into a competence verdict. Use when the user asks to "analyse this training survey", "what training do our teams need", "summarise the manager feedback on skills gaps", "build a training needs analysis by role" or "which roles have the biggest skill gaps". Do not use for turning an agreed need into a course, use course-outline-builder instead; for exit interviews, use exit-interview-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。

Reads two or more supplier, bid or tender responses against a requirements list and returns a DRAFT comparison pack: a requirement-by-supplier matrix, gaps per supplier, clarification questions and neutral observations, for an evaluation panel. Never scores, weights, ranks or recommends a winner; the award stays with the panel. Use when the user asks to "compare these bids", "matrix the tender responses against our requirements", "collate the RFQ replies", "show me where each supplier falls short" or "draft clarification questions for the bidders". Do not use for scoring or weighting against agreed criteria, use supplier-evaluation-matrix instead, or for writing the requirements, use rfp-requirements-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。

Plan the first months at a new Japanese employer after an offer is accepted, listing every expectation and promise made in interviews, the offer, or negotiation with its source, separating what is in writing from what was only said and what has no agreed measure, working out when the probation period ends and whether its criteria and conditions are known, and scheduling who to confirm what with before and after the start date. Use when a user has accepted an offer and wants to prepare for joining, make sure verbal promises such as remote days or a future role are confirmed, or understand what the probation period means for them; do not use to predict whether they will fit in or pass probation, to judge their manager or colleagues, to rule on the legality of probation terms, or to contact the new employer.

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。

Debrief a finished Otameshi Tenshoku trial from the employer's side: set the observed facts against the completion criteria agreed before the start, keep expectations added afterwards, second-hand or off-the-job observations and the company's own late or missing support apart, settle the hours actually worked separately from any evaluation, and draft feedback to the candidate that states facts, support gaps and what happens next without promising a hire or continuation the company has not decided. Use when a hiring manager, recruiter or small-business owner wants to review a trial, decide what to tell the candidate, or work out the settlement after a shortfall; do not use to judge the candidate's aptitude or predict a hire, to cut pay or demand unpaid rework because of dissatisfaction, to compare candidates, or to send the feedback, pay, or update records on the user's behalf.

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。

Reply to an applicant for an employer's Otameshi Tenshoku listing: match the application against the listed requirements item by item on what the applicant actually stated, list the questions still open, and draft an invitation, a request for clarification, a hold notice or a decline that sticks to the listed conditions, keeps other applicants and internal notes out, and presents any new work or dates as a proposal rather than an agreed term. Use when a hiring manager, recruiter or small-business owner has applications to answer, wants to know what to ask before inviting, or has to decline; do not use to judge an applicant's aptitude or predict hiring outcomes, to screen on personal attributes unrelated to the work, to design the work (trial-work-design) or the listing (trial-listing-draft), or to send the message or update applicant records on the user's behalf.

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 bounded performance profiles with explicit load authorization, contextual samples, percentiles, and agreed thresholds.

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。