8,829 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Archive, export, and notarize macOS apps using xcodebuild and asc. Use when you need to prepare a macOS app for distribution outside the App Store with Developer ID signing and Apple notarization.
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。
Crystallize shared understanding into a reviewable spec, or update an existing one. Use when the problem needs a written specification, when assumptions or decisions have changed, or when the user says 'write a spec'.
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 verification strategy: diagnose observability, select oracle families, map to loop tiers, surface blind spots. Use after ln-plan when frontier items or scoped slices need oracle design — especially for LLM, visual, or compositional work — or when verification coverage has drifted.
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。
Audit code quality focusing on deep modules, naming, model hygiene, and architectural clarity. Use after a burst of development, when codebase structure needs assessment, or to make code more agent-navigable.
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。
Search the live web via Perplexity Search API. Use when you need current documentation, release notes, vendor pages, news, domain-constrained web search, or date/recency filtering. Not for local codebase search or stable docs already in context.
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。
Define one thin vertical slice with target behavior, risks, and acceptance criteria. Use when scoping the next piece of work before building, or when a slice from `memory/PLAN.md` needs precise definition.
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。
Uses the gh-axi CLI for GitHub shell operations: issue, pull request, workflow run, release, repo, search, and API tasks. Prefer this over regular `gh` for GitHub reads and simple mutations when an agent needs compact, structured, suggestion-rich output. Triggers on: gh, GitHub CLI, github issue, github pr, pull request, workflow run, github release, gh api, repo inspection, list PRs, view issue, check workflow runs, inspect repo, GitHub shell operations.
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。
Author a completed-spec fixture — a seeded intent graph plus a believable four-phase interview transcript — for a brunch feature, so it can feed any downstream tooling that consumes a completed spec or dogfood the UI. Use when you need a real completed specification in .brunch/brunch.db for testing or demo: pick a feature from memory/SPEC.md (or a free description), choose a stress profile (coverage|clean), and produce a registered scenario seed + an interview-questions doc that match exactly.
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 SD-22 DMSMS Guidebook (DSPO, FY24 working draft). Use for managing Diminished Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) and obsolescence across a long-lived system's life cycle: the five-step process (Prepare, Identify, Assess, Analyze, Implement) plus the Strategize overlay; standing up a DMSMS Management Team (DMT) and Management Plan (DMP); risk-based monitoring and surveillance (the risk cube, predictive tools, vendor surveys, GIDEP/DLA PDNs, critical-materials analysis); health assessments and resolution timing; costing and selecting resolutions (life-of-need buys, substitutes, redesign, technology refreshment) by AoA/BCA; and budgeting/executing resolutions through modification funding and the ECP process. Defense-sustainment / DoD-acquisition framing throughout. Does NOT teach general systems engineering, parts-management standards, or contracting law in depth, and does not reproduce DoD policy text or the source's tables and figures.
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。
Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for OMG modelling specifications — UML, SysML, BPMN, UAF, SoaML, MOF, OCL, XMI, DDS. Contains NO source content: it only points to where the official specs live and what each is for. Use when you need an OMG modelling/architecture specification — the OMG licence forbids redistributing or transforming the text, so these cannot be reconstituted into a pack; download them from OMG directly.
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。
Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for the systems-engineering standards landscape — ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, 24748, 29148, 42010, 15026, 24765; INCOSE SE Handbook & Vision 2035; OMG SysML; SAE/EIA 1001/649/748; ECSS space standards; NATO AAP-48; CMMI; NIST SP 800-160; and more. Contains NO source content: it lists each standard's designation, title, purpose, owning SDO, whether it's redistributable, and where to get it. Use when you need to identify or locate an SE standard — most are paywalled/all-rights-reserved and cannot be packaged, so this points you to the owner (and to the open packs where one exists).
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。
Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for the automotive standards landscape: ISO 26262, ASPICE, SAE J3016, UNECE R155, UNECE R156, and the NHTSA vehicle set. Contains NO source content: designation, edition, owner, status, and an official catalogue URL only. Use when you need to identify or locate an automotive standard. Most are paywalled or carry no redistribution grant and cannot be packaged; the one open path is the nhtsa-vehicle pack.
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。
Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for the functional safety standards landscape: IEC 61508, ISO 26262, ISO/SAE 21434, UL 4600, SAE J3016, and ASPICE. Contains NO source content: designation, edition, owner, status, and an official catalogue URL only. Use when you need to identify or locate a functional safety standard. All six are paywalled or carry no redistribution grant and cannot be packaged; open paths point at US Government packs, which are not equivalents.
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。
Router and protocol for reading and extracting web content. Decides first WHAT is needed (main text vs. structure vs. screenshot) and then WHICH tool available on the system delivers it. If nothing suitable is present, it recommends installing the web-scraper module.
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。
How game development works as a process — roles, subtasks, workflows and role descriptions, especially (but not only) for Roblox. Use this skill when it's about the ORGANIZATION of game dev rather than concrete code: Which roles exist (Creative Director, Engineer, Artist, Polish/Audio, Business, QA-Tester, Game Critic)? Who does which subtask? What does a development chain (concept → backend → frontend → polish → test) look like? How do you write a Game Design Document / KONZEPT.md? How do several (AI) agents divide up a game? Also trigger on "plan a new game", "create Game Design Document", "which roles do I need for my game", "development workflow for a game", "who tests the game", "structure a game idea", "Roblox genre/monetization".
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。
Operating Rojo — the filesystem-to-Roblox-Studio sync tool for professional Roblox development in VS Code / Claude Code instead of the Studio editor. Use this skill whenever Rojo is involved: `rojo serve`/`rojo build`, writing or debugging `default.project.json`, rokit/rokit.toml and tool versions (Rojo, Lune, Wally), nested vs. flat path mapping (ReplicatedStorage.Project.shared), connect/port/sync problems, or when a Roblox project skeleton needs to be created. Also trigger on "rojo connect not working", "scripts end up in the wrong place in Studio", "how do I map src/ to Studio", "port 34872 in use", "ModuleScript vs Script in Rojo".
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 data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-drafter 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 the text and structure of a document, slide deck or web page against the accessibility rules the user supplies, or a default set covering heading structure, image alternative text, colour used as the only cue, link text, reading order, tables and language, and returns numbered findings with location, rule, severity and a ready-to-apply fix for the author, plus proposed alt text and a list of checks that need a tool or a person. Use when the user asks to "check this document for accessibility", "review the alt text in this deck", "is this page accessible", "run an accessibility check on these slides", "find accessibility issues before I publish" or "check my headings and link text". Do not use for brand or template compliance of slides, use branded-deck-builder 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 a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, 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。
Produces a DRAFT product requirements document from the discovery notes, interview summaries, support themes, analytics notes and stakeholder messages the user provides: problem statement, target users, goals with measures as stated, numbered requirements each with a testable acceptance criterion, non-goals, constraints, dependencies and open questions, with every statement tagged evidenced, assumed or UNKNOWN so each assumption is visible for the product owner to confirm. Use when the user asks to "write a PRD", "draft the product requirements", "turn these discovery notes into requirements", "document what this feature needs to do" or "build the requirements doc for this epic". Do not use for supplier-facing requirements in a tender, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for the change ticket that ships the work, use change-request-pack. 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 DRAFT proposal skeleton from a discovery summary (call notes, discovery brief, CRM record, emails) and the organisation's own proposal template: every template section in order, pre-filled only where the discovery material supports it with the source beside each line, and every section still needing a human input marked HUMAN INPUT with the owner role and the question to answer. Use when the user asks to "start the proposal for <prospect>", "build the proposal skeleton from the discovery notes", "pre-fill our proposal template", "what do we already have for the proposal" or "first cut of the proposal". Do not use for answering a formal RFP, RFQ or tender question set, use rfp-response-drafter instead; for turning a priced estimate into a statement of work use estimate-to-sow. 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 a control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, use claims-evidence-map. 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 an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack 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。