929 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Explore open-source GitHub repository source trees via web browsing to analyze and compare feature implementations at the code level. Supports two modes: cross-project comparison and single-project deep dive. Use when evaluating how OSS projects implement a specific feature, choosing architecture patterns, or benchmarking implementation strategies.
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。
[Git] Use when the user asks to compare branches, analyze git diffs, review changes between branches, update specifications based on code changes, or analyze what changed.
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 a group of companies by products, positioning, market focus, and differentiators. Use when the user provides several company records and wants a structured competitive comparison.
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 comprehensive synthesis with explicit citations from multiple ordinary public-web sources via the Tavily CLI. Use for detailed reports, comparisons, market or literature research, and questions whose answer requires multi-source web evidence rather than a quick lookup. Do not use for simple discovery (tavily-search), one known URL (tavily-extract), one-site URL discovery or bulk extraction (tavily-map/crawl), or research centered on named social, community, career, code, media, authenticated, or cross-platform sources (Agent Reach). Takes 30-120 seconds.
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。
Conduct comprehensive AI-powered research with citations via the Tavily CLI. Use this skill when the user wants deep research, a detailed report, a comparison, market analysis, literature review, or says "research", "investigate", "analyze in depth", "compare X vs Y", "what does the market look like for", or needs multi-source synthesis with explicit citations. Returns a structured report grounded in web sources. Takes 30-120 seconds. For quick fact-finding, use tavily-search instead.
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 FIRST when user requests any disease market sizing report (e.g. "做 X 市场调研" / "Run market sizing for X"). Elicits 4-6 startup questions (evidence window, geography, international comparison, report depth, user role) and writes .cache/<slug>/contract.json. ALWAYS invoke before disease-market-sizing-orchestration. Validates against schemas/contract.schema.json.
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。
Measure and audit C/C++ code size, namespace distribution, function complexity, nesting, recurrence, and namespace coupling in the EMULATORS framework. Use when Codex needs codebase statistics, complexity baselines, namespace comparisons, duplication indicators, hotspots, architectural growth analysis, or before/after complexity reports while excluding third-party code.
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。
Create, revise, and validate publication-ready academic paper figures and tables. Use for LaTeX tables, related-work comparison tables, result tables, notation/dataset/taxonomy tables, precise source-data-driven experiment plots from CSV/JSON/logs, generated conceptual figures such as system overviews/pipelines/architectures/threat models, captions, artifact specs, source-data traceability, and paper-ready PDF/SVG/PNG/LaTeX exports. Do not use for prose-only paper writing, self-review, reviewer response, rebuttal drafting, or external literature-management 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。
Lightweight multi-agent research orchestration using one coordinator, three domain leads, and three lightweight research agents. Use for medium-size research, market scans, competitor comparisons, prior-art style exploration, report planning, and any task that benefits from parallel domain decomposition without running a full high-cost research lab.
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。
Discover, compare, and compose existing open-source GitHub repositories for a user's goal, using GitHub MCP for live discovery and verification plus Context7 semantic retrieval over repository code and official documentation. Use when a user asks for GitHub repo recommendations, open-source alternatives, a multi-repository solution stack, project comparison, or help choosing an implementation to adopt.
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。
Catalog and selection guide for Exasol tools, extensions, connectors, integrations, and architecture patterns. Use when the primary intent is comparison, discovery, support-status research, or architecture selection rather than executing a workflow; hand operational work to the selected dedicated skill. Covers deploy, load, explore, enrich, surface, and scale capability families, including named products with no dedicated skill of their own such as Lakehouse Turbo, the Exasol MCP Server, Governed SQL / Text-to-SQL MCP Server, Agent Control Plane, Extension Manager, Terraform and Ansible tooling, and BI, ETL, and warehouse integrations such as Databricks, SAP, Kafka, Power BI, and Tableau.
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。
Authentication patterns: session vs JWT vs OAuth comparison, provider selection (NextAuth, Clerk, Supabase Auth), security checklist, and common mistakes. Use when implementing auth, reviewing auth flows, or choosing auth providers.
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。
This skill should be used when the user asks to "implement LLM-as-judge", "compare model outputs", "create evaluation rubrics", "mitigate evaluation bias", or mentions direct scoring, pairwise comparison, position bias, evaluation pipelines, or automated quality 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。
Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics
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。
Standard Operating Procedures and router for premium UI development, design match comparison, component architecture, and 3D web experiences.
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。
Generate formal IT/hardware purchase request documents from informal requirements. Use when creating purchase justifications, cost-benefit analyses, ROI calculations, vendor comparisons, or MARP presentation slides for management approval.
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。
Load before external product/design research, competitor comparison, clean-room implementation, or adding/updating code, packages, images, fonts, datasets, generated artifacts, or other dependencies whose source/provenance/license may affect outbound licensing; not for purely internal source use with no dependency change.
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。
Comparison of the four guideline-approved psychotherapy approaches in Germany: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Psychodynamic Therapy, Psychoanalysis, Systemic Therapy — Orientation guide.
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 wants to send the same prompt to several LLMs and compare the answers - sequentially (stopwatch, clean per-lane timing) or in parallel (true race), with optional repetitions per model, judged by the starting model across quality, correctness, completeness, instruction fidelity and latency (time is only one dimension). Triggers on /compare-race, 'model race', 'vergleiche modelle', 'gleicher prompt an mehrere modelle'.
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。
Drafts answers to the questions in a received RFP, RFQ or tender from the organisation's past responses, answer library, case studies, policies and other documents provided: one row per buyer question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted or Missing, its source and date, and a legal or pricing review flag on every answer touching terms, liability, warranties, insurance, data protection or price. Use when the user asks to "draft our RFP response", "answer this tender from our past proposals", "pre-fill the bid questions", "first pass at the RFQ answers" or "reuse our previous bid content". Do not use for writing the buyer's own RFP or requirements, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for security or due diligence questionnaires use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill; for scoring received supplier responses use rfp-comparison-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。
Triages an incoming non-disclosure agreement against the organisation's written standard NDA positions and returns a DRAFT triage pack: a clause-by-clause deviations table with a severity band, a suggested response per clause quoted from the positions document, open questions and a governing-law flag, all for counsel to decide. Never gives legal advice or an acceptability call. Use when the user asks to "triage this NDA against our standard positions", "screen this confidentiality agreement before it goes to legal", "red-flag this mutual NDA", "first-pass the counterparty's NDA" or "is this NDA standard or does it need counsel". Do not use for a full review of an MSA, SOW, licence or any whole contract, use contract-review-pack instead; for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table. 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 business need and its constraints into a DRAFT RFP requirements pack: traced functional and non-functional requirements with priorities, mandatory gates, evaluation criteria with weights left to the business owner, and fact-seeking supplier questions. Solution-neutral; never names a supplier or product. Use when the user asks to "write the RFP requirements", "turn this business case into tender requirements", "draft the supplier questionnaire", "structure our RFQ from this brief" or "set up evaluation criteria before we go to market". Do not use for responses already received, use rfp-comparison-pack to compare them or supplier-evaluation-matrix to score them 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。
Abstracts one contract into a key-terms table with clause references, compares each term against the user's playbook of standard positions, and returns a DRAFT contract review pack: deviations and issues, open questions and a reviewer checklist. Flags governing law and never gives legal advice or enforceability or acceptability calls. Use when the user asks to "review this contract", "abstract the key terms", "summarise this MSA", "pressure-test this SOW against our playbook" or to compare an agreement with their standard positions. Do not use for a first pass on a stand-alone NDA, use nda-triage instead, or for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table 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 DRAFT change-communication plan from a change description: audience map, key messages per audience traced to the description, channels, sequence with dates or day offsets, owners, feedback loop and open questions, plus drafts of the first messages for the sponsor to approve. Use when the user asks to "plan the comms for this change", "who needs to hear about this and when", "draft the announcement sequence", "build a communication plan for the rollout", "write the first message to managers about this change" or "how do we tell people about this". Do not use for a clause-by-clause comparison of a changed HR policy with its previous version, use policy-change-briefing instead; for a new hire's first weeks, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。