3,395 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
METAINFORMANT rules for directory config/quality. Use when editing, adding tests, or reviewing code under this path. Read the linked AGENTS.md first; use uv only, write outputs to output/, real implementations.
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。
METAINFORMANT rules for directory docs/quality. Use when editing, adding tests, or reviewing code under this path. Read the linked AGENTS.md first; use uv only, write outputs to output/, real implementations.
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。
Guidance on writing high-quality requirements: the requirement quality characteristics and the EARS (Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax) patterns — ubiquitous, event-driven, state-driven, optional-feature, unwanted-behaviour — for unambiguous, singular, verifiable requirements, plus defect/anti-pattern review and verification & traceability. Use when authoring or reviewing requirements. Original synthesis citing EARS (Mavin et al.) and NASA public-domain guidance; not a reproduction of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 or the EARS paper.
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。
Knowledge base from the NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods (NIST HB 151) — the practical statistics reference for engineering, metrology, and quality. Use for: exploratory data analysis and the four univariate assumptions (4-plot); measurement process characterization including bias/precision, calibration designs, gauge R&R, and ISO/GUM uncertainty budgets; production process characterization (stability vs. capability); process modeling and regression (LS/WLS/NLS/LOESS); design of experiments (screening, fractional/factorial, response-surface, Taguchi); statistical process control (Shewhart/CUSUM/EWMA charts, capability indices, acceptance sampling); product/process comparisons (hypothesis tests and confidence intervals for 1/2/3+ groups, ANOVA, multiple comparisons); and reliability (lifetime & repair-rate models, accelerated testing, reliability growth). Scope limits: this is applied frequentist statistics for measurement and quality — it does NOT reproduce the per-distribution formula galleries, worked case studies, datasets, plot images, or Dataplot/R code of the original web Handbook (those are described, not copied); it is thin on modern machine learning, Bayesian methods beyond conjugate reliability priors, time-series/forecasting, and Bayesian experimental design.
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。
Knowledge base from the DoD M&Q BoK (the Manufacturing and Quality Engineering Body of Knowledge), v3.0 of July 2025, published by OUSD(R&E). Use for the manufacturing-and-quality view of the defense acquisition life cycle: what M&Q engineers do across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework phases (Pre-MDD, Materiel Solution Analysis, Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production and Deployment, Operations and Support); the twelve M&Q threads (A–L) built on the '5 Ms'; manufacturing feasibility and producibility; Manufacturing Readiness Levels and assessments; Key/Critical Characteristics and process capability (Cp/Cpk, SPC); the standards stack (AS6500, AS9100/ISO 9001, AS9103, AS9145); technical reviews (ASR/PDR/CDR/PRR) and milestone gates; DCMA surveillance; industrial base and supply chain; and sustainment (LCSP, IPS, ILA, ISR). Scope is DoD acquisition M&Q practice on the Major Capability Acquisition path — it is a best-practice compilation, not policy, and is thin on detailed shop-floor process engineering, contract law, and the full text of the cited industry standards (which it names but does not reproduce).
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 reported data problems (messages, tickets, meeting notes, complaints) into one DRAFT issue log: one row per issue with the symptom as reported, dataset and fields named, reproduction steps, affected reports, first seen date, reporters, a suggested owner, and blank severity, root cause and status cells for the owner. Never asserts a root cause, severity or fix. Use when the user asks to "log these data issues", "turn these complaints about the numbers into an issue list", "build the data quality backlog", "which reports are hit by this data problem" or "write up the reproduction steps for this data bug". Do not use for exploring or profiling a dataset, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for an IT incident write-up, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for tracking fix actions once assigned, use corrective-action-tracker. 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。
Use when the user asks to "package our proof points", "build reusable stat cards and case snippets", or "put proof where each pillar makes its claim"; turns claims-ledger-approved proofs into reusable proof modules — stat cards, case snippets, testimonial blocks, comparison proofs — each pinned to a message-house pillar and the ledger claim ID it substantiates, and flags any pillar making a claim with no approved proof behind it. Never adjudicates a proof: unverified or ledger-absent proofs are marked '[needs source]' and routed to the claims candidates. Not for adjudicating or substantiating claims — use offer-claims-registry; not for fabricating a benchmark to fill a gap — a missing proof is flagged, not invented; not for scoring narrative quality — use narrative-quality-auditor. 证据模块/证据卡/客户案例/主张对齐
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 the user asks to "audit our brand narrative" or "is this message on-canon"; runs separate typed TALE truth, system, or effectiveness profiles and never averages them into one composite. Checks differentiation, canon, landing consistency, and evidence integrity. Not for launch readiness — use launch-readiness-auditor; not for social operations — use social-quality-auditor. 品牌叙事分层审计/发布前一致性放行
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 auditing domain authority, trust, or citation credibility; runs a peer-relative 40-item CITE profile with evidence coverage and verified manipulation/penalty veto checks. Not for page-level content quality — use content-quality-auditor; not for backlink profiling alone — use offsite-signal-analyzer. 域名权威/网站可信度
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 auditing content quality, E-E-A-T, or publish readiness; runs a typed 80-item CORE-EEAT profile with evidence coverage, veto checks, and a fix plan. Not for structural tags/headers alone — use on-page-seo-checker; not for domain/citation trust — use domain-authority-auditor. 内容质量/EEAT评分
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。
Client reporting, quality assurance, and financial operations management. Handles KPI frameworks, compliance audits, budget tracking, and launch checklists. Use when: managing client dashboards, ensuring brand compliance, conducting QA reviews, tracking marketing spend, ensuring GDPR/CAN-SPAM compliance, proofreading deliverables. Also triggers on: client reporting, QA, quality assurance, brand compliance, marketing budget, financial tracking, legal compliance, GDPR, CAN-SPAM, proofreading, launch checklist
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。
Checks common code quality and maintainability risks.
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。
Documentation conventions for generating high-quality AI agent skills from TypeScript source. Use when preparing a library for skill generation, auditing JSDoc quality, fixing audit warnings, writing @useWhen/@avoidWhen/@never tags, or asking about documentation conventions for skills. Use this even if the user just says 'audit my docs', 'improve my JSDoc', or 'make my skills better'.
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。
Documentation conventions for generating high-quality AI agent skills from TypeScript source. Use when preparing a library for skill generation, auditing JSDoc quality, fixing audit warnings, writing @useWhen/@avoidWhen/@never tags, or asking about documentation conventions for skills.
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。
Marp形式プレゼンテーションの専門レビュー・評価・改善スキル。 10軸スコアリング（100点満点）で品質を定量評価し、具体的な改善コード付きで提案する。 Use when the user asks to: - Review, evaluate, or critique a Marp presentation / プレゼンをレビュー / 評価 / 添削 - Improve, polish, or upgrade existing slides / スライドを改善 / ブラッシュアップ - Check slide quality, score slides, or audit a deck / スライドの品質チェック / 採点 - "このプレゼンどう？" "スライドを見てほしい" "プレゼン資料のフィードバック" Reads .md files with Marp frontmatter, scores across 10 dimensions, and outputs a detailed review report with concrete before/after code improvements. Works as a companion to the marp-slides skill (generation → review → improvement cycle).
Run all available tests and linters, check for anti-patterns, and generate a comprehensive code quality 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。
Coordinate FriendlyBet company-level strategy, CEO handoff, department orchestration, HR/agent-quality escalation, operating-model decisions, multi-agent synthesis, roadmap tradeoffs, decision rights, quality gates, and updates to the virtual company system. Use when Eyal asks to involve the company, CEO, leadership, strategy, operations, several departments, or named executive agents such as Strategy Director, Chief of Staff, or Operating System Lead.
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。
Execute code-quality gates for a completed phase including tests, coverage, lint, types, build, CI/CD, staging, migrations, and spec coverage
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 everything the PA agent manages — tasks, skills, PA network health, billing, calendar connections, and memory quality. Use when: owner asks for an evaluation, wants to know what's working and what isn't, or requests a performance report. Combines supervisor status with quality scoring.
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。
Systematic writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like 'write the paper from this outline,' 'compose the full manuscript,' 'execute the outline,' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality 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。
NVIDIA RAG Blueprint evaluation guidance for measuring retrieval and answer quality with stable datasets, baselines, and reproducible scoring workflows.
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 high-quality MCP servers with strong tool design, structured outputs, clear error handling, and realistic evaluations. Use when creating or improving MCP servers in TypeScript or Python for external APIs, services, or internal platforms.
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 modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for 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。
Validate documentation before merging - check completeness, broken links, code example accuracy, and factual correctness. Use when reviewing docs for quality gates or running pre-merge doc validation.
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。