1,408 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Vendor certification acceptance criteria and equivalence mapping. Covers ISO 27701, SOC 2 Privacy, APEC CBPR, EU Code of Conduct evaluation, certification scope analysis, gap supplementation requirements, and cross-framework equivalence assessment.
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。
Guides privacy program maturity assessment using the AICPA/CIPT Privacy Maturity Model with five levels: Ad Hoc, Repeating, Defined, Managed, and Optimized. Covers assessment methodology across ten privacy domains, scoring criteria, gap analysis, maturity roadmap generation, and benchmarking against industry peers. Keywords: privacy maturity, AICPA, maturity model, assessment, roadmap, benchmarking.
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 the NIST Privacy Framework IDENTIFY function including ID.BE business environment, ID.DA data actions, ID.IM improvement, and ID.RA risk assessment subcategories. Provides control mapping, gap analysis templates, and implementation workflows for privacy risk identification.
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。
Guides ISO 27701 Privacy Information Management System implementation extending ISO 27001/27002. Covers Clause 5 PIMS-specific requirements, Clause 6 PIMS guidance for ISO 27002, Clause 7 PII controller guidance (Annex A), Clause 8 PII processor guidance (Annex B), gap assessment, and certification path. Keywords: ISO 27701, PIMS, privacy management system, ISO 27001 extension, certification, Annex A, Annex B.
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。
Guides conversion of gap analysis findings into phased implementation plans with milestones and risk-based prioritisation. Activate when building compliance programmes or allocating privacy budgets. Keywords: remediation roadmap, implementation plan, phased approach, prioritisation.
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 methodology for auditing website cookies and tracking technologies. Covers automated scanning, cookie categorization, lifecycle documentation, and compliance gap analysis referencing the Planet49 CJEU ruling (C-673/17).
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。
Guides management of cross-border data transfers under Asia-Pacific regulatory frameworks including APEC CBPR, ASEAN Model Contractual Clauses, Japan APPI supplementary rules, South Korea PIPA provisions, and Thailand/Singapore PDPA mechanisms. Keywords: APEC CBPR, ASEAN MCCs, APPI, PIPA, PDPA, APAC transfers.
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 comprehensive attack trees to visualize threat paths. Use when mapping attack scenarios, identifying defense gaps, or communicating security risks to stakeholders.
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。
Analyzes your recent Claude Code chat history to identify coding patterns, development gaps, and areas for improvement, curates relevant learning resources from HackerNews, and automatically sends a personalized growth report to your Slack DMs.
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。
Review PRD.md for gaps, contradictions and unverifiable claims, write an improved PRD.md and record the findings in PRD-REVIEW.md.
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。
Break the PRD into sequenced implementation RFCs under RFCs/ with an RFCS.md index, then cold-read each RFC for gaps.
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。
Produce a plain-language manual test plan from the context supplied to it — an executive summary, a high-level list of named tests, and a detail section per test with the steps a person follows by hand and the outcomes they should expect. Use when you want to create, draft, generate, or outline a manual test plan, manual QA steps, hands-on verification steps, or an acceptance walkthrough for a feature, change, branch, plan, or PR. When the plan holds more than five tests and at least two natural categories emerge, both the test list and the detail sections are organized under plain-language categories. When nothing in the supplied context can be manually tested, it says so and asks for more context instead of producing a document. Does not analyze code for automated test coverage gaps — use automated-test-planning. Does not write test code — use tdd. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-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。
Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural assessment.
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。
Mandatory audit workflow for UI/UX changes that reads current state FIRST, checks for redundancy, respects clean design philosophy, and identifies genuine gaps before implementation. Auto-invoked when user mentions UI, UX, design, layout, homepage, page improvements, visual changes, or interface modifications.
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。
Applies the reasoning style of Ilya Sutskever (deep learning pioneer, co-founder of OpenAI and Safe Superintelligence Inc.) to problems involving AI architecture, scaling laws, alignment, and research strategy. Reach for this skill whenever discussing machine learning paradigms, the limits of compute and data, AGI timelines, superintelligence safety, or deciding between hardcoding vs. learning. Trigger this skill for questions about next-word prediction, reinforcement learning efficiency, generalization gaps, and transitioning from brute-force scaling to fundamental research, even if the user doesn't explicitly name him.
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。
Render the running viewer in a real headless browser and assert on what it drew — element geometry, computed colours, wrap points, truncated labels, console errors. Use when a change moves pixels (navbar/badge/chart layout, CSS, responsive behavior, theme), when a PR says it "needs a visual check", or when reviewing frontend work under src/viewer/assets/. Covers the gap viewer-smoke names: it asserts payload shape, this asserts rendering.
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。
Competitive Ad Intelligence. Analyzes competitor advertising strategies including platform identification, landing page analysis, targeting reverse-engineering, positioning gaps, creative approach evaluation, and builds a "beat the competition" strategy with a competitor ad swipe file template.
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。
Fix features broken by REST API responses that flatten Nostr events, losing tag data. Use when: (1) A feature works for WebSocket-loaded events but not REST API-loaded ones, (2) A model field (like sha256, textTrackRef) is null for REST API data but set for WebSocket data, (3) REST API returns denormalized fields (d_tag, video_url) but omits raw tags array, (4) hasSubtitles/hasFeature returns false for REST-loaded videos. Common in Nostr clients that use both REST APIs (for analytics/bulk queries) and WebSocket (for real-time events).
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。
Detect and analyze areas with high maintenance cost, poor design, or accumulated technical debt. Use this skill when reviewing codebases for quality issues, planning refactoring efforts, conducting code audits, assessing project health, identifying maintenance hotspots, or prioritizing technical improvements. Analyzes code smells, architectural issues, dependency problems, test quality, documentation gaps, and provides actionable recommendations with priority rankings.
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 formal verification artifacts (Isabelle, Coq, Dafny, etc.) and produce structured reports identifying the precise boundary between verified, assumed, and unverified components. Use when assessing verification coverage, understanding trust boundaries, auditing formal proofs, or documenting verification scope. Reports explicitly list verified code, assumptions, axioms, trusted computing base, and unverified components. Conservative and explicit about verification status without attempting to repair or mask gaps.
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。
Interview-based strategic planning for complex software tasks. Conducts structured requirements gathering, gap analysis, and generates detailed work plans before implementation begins.
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。
Automatically updates regression tests based on interval analysis to maintain coverage of key program intervals. Use when code changes affect value ranges, conditionals, or control flow, and existing tests need updating to maintain interval coverage. Analyzes interval information from updated code, identifies coverage gaps, adjusts test inputs and assertions, removes redundant tests, and generates new tests for uncovered intervals. Supports Python, Java, JavaScript, and C/C++ with various test frameworks (pytest, JUnit, Jest, Google Test).
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 existing test suites and source code to suggest additional unit tests that improve test coverage. Use this skill when working with test files and source code to identify untested code paths, missing edge cases, uncovered branches, untested error conditions, and gaps in test coverage. Supports major testing frameworks (pytest, Jest, JUnit, Go testing, etc.) and generates targeted test suggestions based on coverage analysis.
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 vague or partially formed AI, computer-science, data-driven, and engineering-method research directions into evidence-grounded, falsifiable, paper-ready Research Idea Briefs through heuristic questioning, staged confirmation, literature positioning, novelty attack, and method-figure planning. Use when the user needs to clarify a research idea, formalize inputs/outputs/objectives/constraints, frame background and motivation, select 3-5 anchor papers, identify a defensible gap, derive 2-3 contributions, stress-test novelty, or design an input-to-output method framework and core-paper figure. Also trigger on requests such as 明确科研 idea、启发式梳理 idea、互动追问科研问题、梳理论文创新点、定义研究任务、找对标论文、把研究方向变成论文方案、画方法框架图. Do not use as the primary workflow for running experiments, exhaustive systematic reviews, drafting full manuscript sections, or polishing finished prose.
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。