8,659 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Apply when you catch yourself writing the same instruction a second time, or notice a recurring correction. Encode the rule as a lint, metadata flag, runtime check, or script instead of more text.
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。
Strukturiertes Problemlösen in 6 Schritten nach D'Zurilla und Goldfried: Problemdefinition, Ziele, Brainstorming, Bewertung, Umsetzung und Rückblick.
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。
Points to the standalone module law-checker ("Legal Department"): source-grounded AI first-look legal assessments for German law with a statute registry and a statute-embodiment agent. Use this skill when a situation, contract, official notice, or legal question under German law should be checked with exact citations (article/section, paragraph, sentence) -- with a clear boundary: AI-assisted first orientation, not a substitute for a lawyer.
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。
Acceptance & Commitment Therapy (ACT) nach Steven Hayes: Hexaflex-Modell mit den sechs Kernprozessen psychischer Flexibilität.
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。
Teststrategie-Berater für Softwareprojekte — wählt die richtigen Teststufen (Unit/Integration/System/Abnahme), Testarten (funktional, nicht-funktional, änderungsbezogen) und Testentwurfsverfahren (Äquivalenzklassen, Grenzwerte, Entscheidungstabellen, explorativ) für die jeweilige Situation und SDLC-/CI-Phase, inkl. Testpyramide, CI/CD-Gates, Shift-Left und Best Practices. Nutze diesen Skill IMMER, wenn Tests geschrieben, geplant, priorisiert oder bewertet werden sollen — bei "schreibe Tests", "Teststrategie", "Testplan", "Testkonzept", "was/wie soll ich testen", "welche Tests fehlen", "Testabdeckung verbessern", "QA aufsetzen", Fragen zu Regression/Smoke/Sanity/Last/Stress/Security-Tests oder beim Einrichten einer Test-Pipeline — auch wenn "Test" nur beiläufig fällt. Abgrenzung — für die TDD-Schleife selbst superpowers:test-driven-development, für Bug-Diagnose bugfix-protocol, für systematische Bug-Suche bugsweep nutzen.
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。
Compares one policy against one requirement set (standard, regulation, contract schedule or customer requirement) clause by clause and returns a draft gap review: each requirement element, the policy clause that appears to address it, an apparent match state, and every gap as a question with the clause reference on both sides. Never concludes that the policy complies; the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "gap our policy against the standard", "map this policy to the regulation clause by clause", "check the security policy against the customer's contract schedule", "compare our policy with the new edition" or "where does our policy fall short of the requirements". Do not use for mapping a requirement to the operating controls that implement it, use controls-gap-pack instead; for what a regulatory change means for the organisation, use regulatory-change-impact-note. 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。
Prepares a DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill 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。
Reads one export transaction, order or shipment description and returns a DRAFT export review pack: parties to screen with a screening checklist, an item classification worksheet, a red-flag review, licence-determination questions and open items. Use when the user asks to "prepare the export review for this order", "pre-check this shipment for export control", "who do we need to screen on this deal", "build the classification worksheet for this item" or "assemble the trade-compliance file for this technology transfer". Do not use for vendor security or due-diligence screening of a supplier's questionnaire answers; use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead. Never classifies, screens, clears, decides licence need or releases a shipment; trade compliance does. 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。
Turns an access export (accounts, entitlements, grant and last-used dates per system) into a draft access review pack, one section per system owner: who has what, since when, anomalies to confirm and the decision each line needs, with a blank column for the owner's decision. Never decides, revokes or rates access. Use when the user asks to "prepare the access review pack", "split this entitlement export by system owner", "who has access to what in this system", "build the recertification pack from this export" or "draft the access attestation for the owners". Do not use for a single request for a tool or access, use software-request-review 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。
Reviews one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. 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。
Maps every proposed P&ID object from an accepted enrichment draft to the generic family, catalogue class and required attributes the project's intelligent P&ID authoring tool would need, as a readiness table with UNKNOWN wherever the project catalogue extract is not provided, plus connectivity readiness per line and a numbered list of import blockers. Mapping only: it never writes to the tool, never produces an import file and never claims a class exists in the catalogue. Use when the user asks to "build the readiness map", "show how far the draft is from a sandbox import", "list what would block the import", "map the objects to the tool catalogue" or "check attribute readiness against the catalogue extract" after gate G3. Do not use for validating the discipline sections or assembling the review package, use validation-and-review-package 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。
Builds a role-tuned morning brief as a dated Markdown document covering emails that need replies, today's calendar with conflicts flagged, chat mentions and upcoming deadlines, in the section order set by a preset (project manager, executive assistant, IT admin, sales or custom) read from an editable config. Use when the user asks to "run my brief", "give me my morning brief", "start-of-day summary", "switch my brief to the sales preset" or "change what my brief covers". Do not use for tracking promises made or owed across days, use commitment-catcher 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, use ciso-reviewer. 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Operating Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific sections, delivery and operational risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a COO review", "pressure-test the delivery plan", "what would our COO say about this", "check the timeline and capacity" or "find the execution gaps before the steering committee". Do not use for financial questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer. 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. 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。
Drive the user's host machine directly through Cua, with no sandbox. Maps to Cua's Localhost API. Higher risk - the agent can click, type, and run shell commands on the real desktop. Use only when the user explicitly opts in and read the safety section first. Triggers - "control my computer", "click here", "use my real Chrome", "no sandbox", "내 컴퓨터 자동화".
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 an Anima LoRA from a single-character or style name, from Danbooru collection through curation, section-ordered WD14 captions, dataset checks, confirmed training, fixed-seed checkpoint validation, and a staged Civitai draft. Use for requests such as make a LoRA of X, collect images and train a character LoRA, train and upload to Civitai, or build a dataset from scratch and publish. Delegate training to lora-trainer and structural checks to dataset-doctor; never train without confirmation and never auto-publish.
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。
- Check and interpret data-breach exposure for an email, username, phone or name using Have I Been Pwned, the Pwned Passwords k-anonymity range API, DeHashed, IntelX and Snusbase. Use when checking breach or leak exposure, finding which services an account was registered with, interpreting a combolist or credential dump, assessing credential compromise, or auditing your own leaked personal data
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。
Чистка спамных личных переписок перед повторным касанием: детерминированный план (какие НАШИ веерные рассылки и неотвеченные залпы стереть из диалога) → показ Антону → удаление ТОЛЬКО НАШИХ сообщений (revoke у обеих сторон) → свежий питч в очищенный тред. Триггеры: '/thread-clean', 'почисти переписку', 'вычисти спам из лички', 'чистка треда', 'убери наши рассылки', 'тред выжжен, почисти'
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。
- РАЗБОР ВХОДЯЩЕГО от живых людей: кто написал нам в Telegram (личка + упоминания в группах), WhatsApp и другие мессенджеры, сколько часов ждёт, кто он такой, сколько он стоит нашего внимания -- и… Триггеры: “/triage“, “/триаж“, “разбери входящие“, “разбери инбокс“, “кто нам написал“, “кто ждёт ответа“, “разбери личку“, “проверь сообщения“, “разбери телеграм“, “triage my inbox“, “who wrote to us“
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 findings into a defensible intelligence product — BLUF key judgements, standardised estimative probability language, per-claim sourcing with timestamps and archived copies, separated observation, inference and assessment,… Use when writing an intelligence report, due-diligence memo, evidence pack or executive summary, or when asked to write up an investigation so it survives challenge
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 an always-on Telegram watch loop under a separate assistant account using MCP push tools. Mode 1 answers when the assistant account is mentioned in team chats, with actionable vault-grounded advice; mode 2 ambiently watches designated chats and pings on salient events. Triggers: "/telegram-watch", "start the telegram watch".
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。
Squeeze three to five durable lessons out of the owner's own words from the last seven days into a weekly note in the insights folder. The LLM reads only a collector's digest, never the raw corpus. Triggers: "/wisdom-distill", "distill my week", "weekly wisdom".
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。
- Track aircraft and vessels from public ADS-B and AIS broadcasts using ADS-B Exchange, Flightradar24, FlightAware,… Use when following a tail number or flight, looking up an ICAO 24-bit hex code, registration or callsign, tracing a ship by IMO number or MMSI, checking a flag of convenience or port-call history, finding who owns a private jet or vessel
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。