「erd」の検索結果

Coordinates code quality: ln-511 metrics, ln-512 cleanup, inline agent review (Codex + Gemini), ln-513 regression, ln-514 log analysis. Returns quality_verdict + aggregated 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。

Use when forensically auditing a Claude Code skill/agent/command/workflow library against RULESET.md by a fixed mechanical protocol — probing every file against the mechanically-checkable rules and reporting CONFORMS / VIOLATES / UNVERIFIABLE / N-A counts with quoted evidence. It casts NO judgment and emits NO pass/fail verdict; counts are the headline. Triggers on "investigate the library", "audit against RULESET", "find every violation", "forensic library audit", "evidence-only check". Not for routing/quality/single-responsibility judgment — use skill-library-review. Not the full sharded sweep — use the audit-library command.

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。

Guardiao de contexto que preserva dados criticos antes da compactacao automatica. Snapshots, verificacao de integridade e zero perda de informacao.

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 comprehensive technical reviews of Ruby on Rails applications. Runs automated analysis tools (RubyCritic, Brakeman, bundler-audit, Gitleaks, Debride, linters, SimpleCov, Rails stats, Rails ERD), analyzes code for architecture, security, authorization (Pundit/CanCanCan), dead code, and design issues, and produces a structured markdown report with prioritized findings and a 0-10 score. Use when the user requests a tech review, code audit, project assessment, or quality analysis of a Rails application.

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。

Prove — or honestly fail to prove — a specific technical claim: "the fix works", "it's deployed", "the service is running", "the site is done", "there are no vulnerabilities". Atomizes the claim, picks the shortest decisive signal on the evidence ladder, and returns a verdict from a fixed vocabulary (pass / partial / fail / skip) with an explicit coverage boundary. NOT code review, NOT a fix, NOT orchestration — only "what is proven, and what we merely hope". Triggers — "prove it works", "is it really done?", "are you sure?", "we deployed — is it live?", "verify that", "did we actually check?".

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 an incoming workflow upgrade — a skill, MCP server, subagent, library, external service, prompt, or pattern — through one disciplined pipeline before adopting it. Security is a blocking gate. Records every verdict so the same thing is never evaluated twice. Use when considering a new tool from a post, repo, or recommendation. Triggers — "vet this", "should we adopt", "is this safe to install", "evaluate this skill/MCP", "what do you think of this tool".

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。

Scan every open pull request in a GitHub repository, filter to the ones that are genuinely mergeable now, and report a compact verdict with a suggested merge order. Use when the user asks which PRs can be merged, wants an open-PR backlog triaged or reviewed in bulk, asks why a PR is blocked, or wants to clear a queue of stale or bot-reviewed PRs.

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。

Reviews a GitHub PR with a shallow correctness/security/breaking/AI-slop checklist and emits a verdict; optionally posts via gh. NOT for own-diff audit (mk:review); NOT for replying (mk:respond-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。

Structured second-pass reasoning after a review or plan verdict: pre-mortem, inversion, red team, Socratic lens, etc. NOT for initial review (mk:review) or new plans (mk:plan-creator).

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 raw idea into ONE honest recommendation: interview one question at a time until confirmed, then give a verdict with trade-offs and a checklist. Not for options or debate.

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-pass structural code review with adversarial analysis, scope-aware dispatch, adversarial persona passes, and forced-finding protocol. Supports input modes: branch diff (default), PR number (#123), commit hash, pending changes (--pending). Use when asked to "review this PR", "code review", "pre-landing review", "check my diff", or "review #123". Proactively suggest when the user is about to merge or land code changes. NOT for behavioral verification against a running build (see mk:evaluate); NOT for post-implementation simplification (see mk:simplify).

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。

Structured second-pass reasoning after code review or plan evaluation. Offers named reasoning methods (pre-mortem, inversion, red team, Socratic, etc.) to re-examine findings through a specific lens. Use after /mk:review verdict or any time deeper analysis is needed on an existing output. NOT for initial review (see mk:review); NOT for creating implementation plans (see mk:plan-creator).

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。

Analyze external URL to evaluate fit with oh-my-customcode project and auto-create GitHub issue with verdict

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 running analytical SQL over Parquet/CSV/JSON without a warehouse, replacing pandas for data wrangling, joining S3 data in-place, building local data marts, or embedding OLAP into an app. Triggers: read_parquet/read_csv setup, partitioned dataset queries, hive partitioning, glob patterns for S3, COPY TO export, attach Postgres/MySQL, UDFs in Python/R, MotherDuck cloud sync, columnar performance vs row stores. NOT for OLTP workloads (concurrent writes), distributed analytics at petabyte scale (use Spark/Trino), or vector search (use pgvector/Lance).

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。

Calculates statistical power for high-dimensional genomics experiments (bulk RNA-seq, scRNA-seq, ATAC-seq, ChIP-seq, methylation, proteomics) under negative-binomial count models using RNASeqPower, PROPER, and simulation via powsimR, distinguishing per-gene from marginal (transcriptome-wide) power, the role of mean expression and dispersion, and the sequencing-depth-versus-replicate tradeoff. Covers simulation as the honest default for overdispersed counts, FDR-aware average power versus single-test power, observed/post-hoc power as an anti-pattern, and the winner's-curse / Type-S / Type-M consequences of underpowering. Use when planning replicate number for a sequencing experiment, deciding whether to add depth or samples, choosing closed-form versus simulation power, estimating power from pilot dispersions, or justifying replication in a grant. For clinical-trial power see clinical-biostatistics/power-and-sample-size; for the inverse sample-size question see experimental-design/sample-size.

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。

Detects allele-specific transcription factor or histone modification binding from heterozygous-variant ChIP-seq using WASP (reference-bias filter; mandatory upstream), RASQUAL (joint QTL + bias-corrected testing), BaalChIP (Bayesian beta-binomial with copy-number-aware overdispersion), and AlleleSeq (personalized diploid genome). Handles imprinted-locus awareness, X-inactivation artifacts, cancer copy-number imbalance, and integration with downstream caQTL / bQTL mapping. Use when identifying variants with allelic effects on TF binding, fine-mapping causal regulatory variants, validating deep-learning variant predictions, or characterizing cis-acting regulatory effects.

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。

Decide whether commonly-excluded patients (eating disorders, elderly ≥75, upper GI disease) can actually receive a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Use when a clinician asks "can I give semaglutide to a patient with binge eating disorder / anorexia / bulimia", "is liraglutide safe in an 80-year-old", "GLP-1 with GERD or chronic gastritis", "GLP-1 in sarcopenic elderly", or anytime a patient is being ruled out for GLP-1 therapy based on a perceived contraindication. Grounded in Gorgojo-Martínez 2023 §6 (Myths or Reality).

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 four published expert-consensus clinical scenarios to manage GI adverse events in complex GLP-1 receptor agonist patients — persistent nausea mid-titration, GERD/heartburn after up-titration, elderly with sarcopenia risk, and insulin-treated elderly with CKD plus diarrhoea. Use when a clinician describes a patient resembling one of these archetypes, or asks "how to manage GLP-1 in an elderly patient with CKD", "patient on liraglutide developed reflux", "sarcopenia worry on semaglutide in 80-year-old", or "persistent nausea on semaglutide despite escalation". Grounded in Gorgojo-Martínez 2023 Table 4.

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。

Contract document for the binding test verdict file at .claude/state/last_test_result. Format spec for callers (integrate, simplify, chore, the verify-tick worker) that inline the four mechanical operations. Not Skill-tool-invocable.

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。

Workflow Phase 9 — Integration and Verification. Runs the full test suite, stamps the binding verdict at .claude/state/last_test_result, optionally runs a cross-engine smoke check, and writes harness_state so the harness auto-continues or yields. No subagent delegation.

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。

Oracle-bound spec-review check that every structured Rollout prerequisite binds to an enforcement-type acceptance criterion. A prerequisite whose `enforced-by` is missing, dangling, or points at a non-enforcement AC is a BLOCKER (hard-blocks implementation entry via the checker fan-out verdict); a prerequisite left in free prose is ADVISORY. Read-only. Runs in the spec-review fan-out before implementation.

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。

Marc Andreessen-mode decision and productivity skill. A blunt, market-first operator that pressure-tests ideas, ventures, features, and career bets through Andreessen's actual frameworks — market dominates team and product; the only milestone that matters is product/market fit; bias to build over deliberate. Use when the user says 'andreessen', 'pmarca mode', 'should I build this', 'is there a market', 'are we at product/market fit', 'pmf check', 'pressure-test this idea', 'be brutal about this venture', 'market-first take', or wants a no-disclaimers, no-hedging, confidence-leveled verdict on whether something is worth pursuing. Also provides the 3x5-card + Anti-Todo personal productivity routine. Runs on a fixed anti-sycophancy operating prompt: leads with the strongest counterargument, never validates premises, uses explicit confidence levels, never apologizes for disagreeing. Not for polite brainstorming — this skill exists to tell you the market is dead when it is.

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。

Build bilingual, evidence-backed, SIEGER v2 customer intelligence reports for foreign-trade leads. Use when OpenClaw or a sales operator needs claim-level citations, decision gates, an industry-specific analysis lens, a non-fabricated verdict card, and sales angles that require approval before downstream outreach drafting.

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 analytical thinking, or when a question needs breaking down and evidence: "why did metric X drop?", "what drives this?", "break this down", "what data do we need?". Builds a tree, hypotheses and evidence, ends with an answer and key uncertainty. Skip for quick verdicts.

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。