「rfc」の検索結果

AIエージェントが継続して作業するループを、品質確認と評価、失敗時の停止・再実行の方針を組み合わせて設計し、進捗停滞や再試行に対処するスキル。

• 継続作業のループ方式を選びたいとき
• 品質確認と評価を組み合わせたいとき
• 失敗や進捗停滞からの復旧

Claude Codeで開発作業を繰り返し進める自律ループの設計を案内します。順次実行から並列作業まで、履歴の引き継ぎや品質確認、停止条件を整理します。

• 順次実行の開発手順を設計したいとき
• 反復実行で進捗を引き継ぎたいとき
• 並列作業と変更の統合を調整したいとき

For product and technical management work: turn PRDs, roadmaps, RFCs, architecture reviews, and retros into decision documents. Built around the core query "pm-feature-business-case-deck", with product strategy lead judgment, buyer-ready proof, and this outcome: approve the feature, architecture, roadmap, or incident follow-up.

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。

Evaluate and carry out non-trivial software-system changes from first principles. Use when assessing RFCs, issues, designs, features, refactors, migrations, dependency changes, or proposed fields, events, APIs, modules, and services whose need, consumers, system fit, validation, or rollback require scrutiny. Read the actual system, identify the concrete problem and named semantic consumers, choose the smallest sufficient solution, reject pseudo-requirements and speculative abstractions, and require evidence proportional to risk. Do not use for mechanical edits, source-code explanation, or a dedicated review of an already-complete diff.

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。

Apply the SGLang kernels RFC when adding, moving, splitting, or reviewing kernel APIs, registry metadata, kernel tests, benchmarks, and model-specific implementations. Use with add-jit-kernel, add-sgl-kernel, and write-sglang-test for placement and migration checks.

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。

Write system prompts, tool docs, and agent definitions. Project tag conventions + RFC 2119 keywords + dense compression. Use when authoring or editing any prompt the model reads.

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。

Configures TLS 1.3 (RFC 8446) on servers, covering cipher suite and key-exchange group selection, and validates the resulting configuration with openssl s_client and testssl.sh. Use when deploying or hardening TLS 1.3 for secure communications, or when testing a server for common TLS misconfigurations and vulnerabilities.

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。

Poll and rank open GitHub issues, RFCs, and pull requests for maintainer work, or start one explicitly selected item. Use when a user asks what to work on, requests backlog priorities, says "poll work," wants actionable issues or pull requests, or says "start

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。

Converts long-form markdown (specs, RFCs, reports, plans, explainers) into a single-file, lightly-interactive HTML document with sticky TOC, scrollspy, search filter, code-copy buttons, and design-system-driven brand tokens. Triggers when the markdown-html-orchestrator classifies an input as DOCUMENT, or when invoked directly via /cs:md-document. Reads the design-system config via config_loader.py and inlines the user's 12 derived CSS custom properties; refuses to render if onboarding hasn't run. Single-file output — Google Fonts + Prism.js CDN are the only externals; no framework runtime, no build step. Use after orchestrator routing or after design-system onboarding is confirmed.

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 a user wants to convert any markdown file in their Claude project into a single-file, lightly-interactive HTML — long-form documents (specs, plans, RFCs, reports, explainers), code reviews with diffs and severity-tagged annotations, or slide decks. Triggers on "convert this markdown to HTML", "make this an HTML file", "turn this into an interactive document", "render this report as HTML", "PR writeup as HTML", "slides from this markdown". Forks context to route to one of three converter sub-skills (md-document, md-review, md-slides) based on a deterministic doctype classifier, after the user has run the design-system onboarding once. Refuses if input is under 100 lines (per Shihipar — markdown still wins below the threshold) or design-system isn't onboarded. Distinct from Anthropic's official Playground plugin (which is interactive prompt-tuning controls with sliders/knobs/prompt-copy-back) and from marketing/landing/ (which is a landing-page generator).

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。

Implement and debug OAuth 2.0 DPoP (RFC 9449) refresh token sender-constraining for WebCrypto, Node.js ES6, and browser runtimes integrating with Google's OAuth platform. Use when configuring non-extractable asymmetric key pairs (P-256), generating DPoP Proof JWTs for authorization code exchange and token refresh, or handling 400 use_dpop_nonce challenge retry loops at oauth2.googleapis.com/token. Don't use for unconstrained OAuth 2.0 flows (where refresh tokens are not bound to a client key pair), or for Google Cloud IAM / service account authentication.

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 docs that reduce cognitive load. Trigger: writing guides, READMEs, RFCs, onboarding, architecture, or review-facing docs.

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。

Creates comprehensive Technical Design Documents (TDD) with mandatory and optional sections through interactive discovery. Use when user asks to "write a design doc", "create a TDD", "technical spec", "architecture document", "RFC", "design proposal", or needs to document a technical decision before implementation. Do NOT use for README files, API docs, or general documentation (use docs-writer instead).

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。

Turns decided work — a PRD, design doc, RFC, or thread — into tasks a builder can act on without guessing. Finds slices that each prove something, grounds them in the code, and writes intent, observable criteria with concrete values, the boundary, what the change disturbs, and only the decisions that are hard to reverse. Walks every surface the work exposes and sweeps the nine unwritten requirements, recording each landing as a criterion already in the source, existing behaviour, n/a, or Unresolved — never as a criterion the walk invented. Defaults to one task per source. Use when the user says "write the task", "cut this PRD into tasks", "turn this design doc into work", or "tlc-plan". Do NOT use for discovery itself or to implement — a one-line ticket is a decision; a blank wish is not.

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。

Creates Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) to document significant architectural choices and their rationale for future team members. Use when the user says "write an ADR", "document this decision", "record why we chose X", "add an architecture decision record", "create an ADR for", or wants to capture the reasoning behind a technical choice so the team understands it later. Do NOT use when the decision hasn't been made yet (use create-rfc instead), for implementation planning (use technical-design-doc-creator), or for general documentation.

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。

Evaluate a repo agent harness (AGENTS.md, rules, skills, skill refs) for broken paths/commands, redundant instructions, and usefulness using a stack-agnostic dual-judge protocol with planted traps. HIGH PRIORITY questionnaires at top: Q1 optional docs, Q2 B/C budget before Track A (certainty/tokens). A always runs after Q2; B/C opt-in. ADRs/RFCs excluded from T2. Mixed apply uses 11-mixed-apply.md (KEEP/CUT). Use when the user says harness eval, harness-eval, harness debug, audit AGENTS.md, audit skills/rules, instruction audit, redundancy of agent instructions, usefulness of skills, Ship/Review/Hold/Slim/Keep-core for harness, or wants Track A/B/C harness evaluation. Do NOT use for harness setup or init, feature spec-driven work (tlc-spec-driven), or applying Ship/Slim trims unless the user explicitly asks after the 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。

Use before substantial DeepChat code, configuration, documentation, test, build, feature, issue, refactor, or architecture changes that need a durable RFC and an explicit execution path. Skip trivial style fixes, small localized logic changes, routine docs edits, and simple bugs unless the developer asks for SDD. Use plan.md as the only separate tracker when needed, default to implementation-first validation, and ask before optional GitHub issue sync unless the developer explicitly requested 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。

This skill should be used when the user asks to co-author documentation, draft a proposal, write a technical spec, create a decision doc or RFC, or structure a substantial document through iterative collaboration and reader testing.

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。

A structured workflow for co-authoring high-signal docs (PRD, RFC, design docs, proposals, decision records). Use when the user needs to turn messy context into a readable artifact with clear goals, tradeoffs, and next steps. Emphasizes context capture, outline-first drafting, and context-free reader testing to catch 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。

Write an implementation plan as one interactive HTML page - a tree of claims (why › what › how › where), each proved by one exhibit (UI mockup, state machine, call stack, schema or code), with the decisions the user has to make placed on the claim they change. Use when the user types /html-plan, or asks for a plan, RFC or design before building something that touches more than a couple of 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。

This skill should be used when the user asks to co-author documentation, draft a proposal, write a technical spec, create a decision doc or RFC, or structure a substantial document through iterative collaboration and reader testing.

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 this skill when the user is doing hands-on DOCA AES-GCM work on a BlueField DPU or ConnectX NIC — configuring `doca_aes_gcm_task_encrypt` / `_task_decrypt`, querying `doca_aes_gcm_cap_*` for per-key-type (only `DOCA_AES_GCM_KEY_128` / `_256` — AES-192 not supported) and per-task support, sizing plaintext against the max-buf cap, setting source / destination mmap permissions, validating with a NIST GCMVS or RFC 5288 vector, or debugging DOCA_ERROR_* including the security-critical tag-verification-failed outcome on decrypt. Trigger even when the user does not explicitly mention "DOCA AES-GCM" or "AEAD" — typical implicit phrasings: "decrypt completion IO_FAILED", "auth tag isn't verifying", "NOT_PERMITTED on my encrypt buffer", "is AES-192-GCM on this BlueField" (no), or "encrypted record came back tampered". Refuse and route elsewhere for non-GCM AES modes (CBC / CTR / XTS — CPU OpenSSL), key management (KMS / HSM / rotation), SHA (doca-sha), or general AEAD background.

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。

Rigorous, defensible email-spoofability verdict and SPF supply-chain risk analysis computed from published DNS alone. Deepens the record-level SPF/DMARC/DKIM/BIMI/MTA-STS/DNSSEC fetch recipes in the offensive-osint arsenal (§16.14) with the reasoning that section doesn't do: a priority-ordered composite verdict for whether an attacker can actually land header-From-spoofed mail in an inbox, and by which vector (exact-domain vs subdomain) — grounded in the single most-misunderstood distinction in email security: the envelope MAIL FROM that SPF authenticates vs the visible header From: that only DMARC governs. Explains precisely why SPF -all/~all alone is NOT spoof-proof without DMARC enforcement, and why SPF +all bypasses DMARC even under p=reject pct=100. Covers RFC 7208 §4.6.4's 10-DNS-lookup / 2-void-lookup PermError fail-open condition with a runnable stdlib-only lookup-counter script, plus the SPF-include-takeover supply-chain vector (an attacker re-registering a dead include inherits SPF-pass authority over the victim domain) with strict transient-vs-NXDOMAIN discrimination discipline so a temporary SERVFAIL is never mistaken for a takeover lead. Fully passive: DNS TXT reads only, no mail sent, no RCPT TO probe, no API keys. Use when auditing a domain's real spoofing resistance (not just its published records), explaining to a client why 'we have SPF -all' does not mean they're covered, investigating an SPF PermError or an unusually long include chain, evaluating a dead SPF include as a takeover lead, or writing a defensible spoofability finding for a deliverable.

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。

Validate changes before submitting a pull request. Run comprehensive checks including lint, tests, alignment review, and RFC analysis. Use before creating a PR, when asked if code is ready for review, or before pushing for PR.

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。