957 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Analyze network device logs to identify connectivity issues, latency problems, and outages. Correlate timestamps across timezones, detect anomaly patterns, and generate incident reports with root cause hypotheses. Use when troubleshooting network incidents from log files.
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 Lean Six Sigma consulting skill supporting all belt levels (White Belt to Master Black Belt). Use this skill for DMAIC/DMADV project execution, Lean waste elimination (VSM, 8 Wastes/DOWNTIME, 5S), statistical analysis (process capability Cp/Cpk, control charts, hypothesis testing), and Six Sigma training/education. Triggers include "improve process", "reduce defects", "sigma level", "DMAIC project", "value stream mapping", "Kaizen", "process capability", "control chart", "root cause analysis", "5 Whys", "Fishbone diagram", "FMEA", "DOE", or requests involving process improvement methodologies.
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 coaching hypothesis-driven debugging that requires the learner to gather evidence and reason about root causes before applying fixes.
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 when EF Core reads are slow, emit N+1 or excessive SQL, over-fetch, track too many entities, cause high DB load, or need projection/split-query/compiled-query analysis; not for general migrations, DbContext setup, or repository conventions.
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 when asked to record/log a durable finding, or after discovering a non-obvious reusable root cause or repository behavior that should be appended to `dev/_journal/journal.md`; not for routine progress notes or facts already documented.
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 when diagnosing a bug, exception, regression, wrong result, failing flow, or unknown root cause in repository code using callers/callees, execution flows, recent changes, and impact analysis; not for implementing a known fix without investigation.
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 NASA Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures Guide (NASA/SP-2011-3421, 2nd ed.). Use for quantitative PRA of aerospace and safety-critical systems: the risk triplet and scenario logic stack (MLD, ESD, event trees, fault trees, minimal cut sets), Bayesian data collection and parameter estimation, aleatory/epistemic uncertainty modeling and common-cause failure (Alpha Factor, beta-factor, CCBE), human reliability analysis (THERP, CREAM, NARA, SPAR-H), context-based software risk (CSRM), physics-based and structural/phenomenological models (stress-strength, limit states, FORM/SORM, NASGRO, range safety), uncertainty propagation and importance measures (F-V, RAW, Birnbaum, DIM), and launch-abort modeling with worked PRA examples. This is the QUANTITATIVE engine beneath NASA's risk doctrine — for the qualitative RIDM/CRM decision framework use the nasa-risk pack. Thin on programme management, organisational risk governance, and non-aerospace regulatory contexts; aerospace-focused and anchored to the 2011 second edition.
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 FAA System Safety Handbook (Dec 30, 2000). Use for system safety as a specialty within systems engineering: the five-step safety risk management process (mandated by FAA Order 8040.4 and the AMS), the severity-by-likelihood risk matrix and acceptance bands, the Safety Order of Precedence, system-description models (5M, SHEL(L)), the hazard-analysis activities (PHL/PHA/RHA/SSHA/SHA/O&SHA/HHA), integrated system hazard analysis, the analysis techniques (FTA, FMEA/FMECA, Fault Hazard, Common Cause, Sneak Circuit, Energy Trace), closed-loop hazard tracking (Safety Action Record), and the specialty domains the handbook covers — acquisition-lifecycle safety and contracting (OSA/CSA/SSPP/ISSPP), software safety (control-capability ranking, SHCM, DO-178B), test & evaluation safety, facilities safety, commercial launch safety (AST licensing, expected casualty, MPL/DAMP), system safety training, and Operational Risk Management (ORM) with human/organizational factors. Scope limits: this is a year-2000 FAA how-to; it predates the modern FAA/ICAO Safety Management System (SMS) and Just Culture regulatory frameworks, and many cited orders, advisory circulars, and launch-licensing rules have since been restructured. It is FAA/NAS-centric, leans on MIL-STD-882C, and does not define the SE life-cycle processes themselves (use nasa-npr-7123 / dau-se-guidebook) or reproduce third-party standard text (MIL-STD-882, DO-178B, ISO/IEC/IEEE).
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。
Drafts a blameless incident postmortem (summary, impact, timeline, detection and response, contributing factors as candidates for review, action items) from an incident channel export, ticket notes and any alert or change records, with UNKNOWN for every fact the inputs do not contain. Never assigns blame, names a root cause or re-rates severity. Use when the user asks to "write the postmortem for this incident", "build the incident timeline from the chat export", "draft the post-incident review" or "turn this ticket and channel log into an incident report". Do not use for a knowledge article from the resolved ticket, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis; for data-breach impact and notification questions, use data-incident-impact-brief. 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 actuals-versus-budget extract (spreadsheet, export or pasted table) into a DRAFT variance table with absolute and percentage variances, favourable or adverse marking and a ranking by size, then drafts plain-language driver hypotheses for each material variance as questions to verify with a named owner, never as asserted causes. Use when the user asks to "explain these variances", "why are we over budget on this line", "write the variance commentary for the management pack", "actuals versus budget analysis" or "which lines drive the variance". Do not use for a dataset with no budget or comparison column, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for weekly operational figures against last week, use kpi-weekly-report-writer. 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。
Bring past diagnoses to a bug before fixing it, record the new root-cause hypothesis, and close it as confirmed or refuted once the fix is verified. Use when a bug could come from more than one layer, or looks like something seen before.
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。
Coach German writing and conversation with minimal corrections, persistent root-cause mistake tracking (FehlerDNA), mistake-based spaced repetition with a new sentence every time, roleplay whose words return in spaced reviews, continuing preparation for real-life goals across sessions, and an honest progress profile. Use for German correction, personalized review, vocabulary, progress, roleplay, or preparation for an interview, presentation, appointment, or other concrete event; do not use for translation-only requests without learning or feedback.
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。
Quality gate immediately after building: prove that what was just built actually works, while the context is still hot. Six steps: scope what changed, run live on real data, break it on purpose, show a counter or log proving it ran, root-cause any failure and re-run, then a verdict with evidence. Only a green verdict earns the word done. Supports an external multi-vendor review panel as a mid-step. Triggers: "/tt", "/test", "prove it works", "test what we built".
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 a target repository's queue and find a live open issue the contribution would close, before opening a pull request there. Reports how many PRs are open, how many of the last N closed ones were actually merged, and which issue to attach to, because a cold PR into a dead queue is a wasted artifact. Triggers: "/issue-match", "is this repo worth a PR", "measure the queue".
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 current task to a verified result instead of stopping at a plausible report. Use when the user says /continue, keep going, not done yet, push further, or is unhappy with the result. Rebuilds requirements from the conversation, re-checks real state, fixes root causes, verifies from the consumer side, offloads side quests.
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。
Repair the Cursor editor when it crashes, fails to launch, or new Agent chats break. Use with a Request ID, fresh logs, CursorRule.parse_error or invalid UTF8 in skill frontmatter, or a better-sqlite3 NODE_MODULE_VERSION mismatch. Finds a reproducible cause, applies a narrow reversible fix and proves it with two new chats. Triggers: /cursor-repair, Cursor won't start, Cursor agent broken.
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 after substantial web projects or repeated design defects to convert evidence into reusable skill improvements through root-cause analysis, regression scenarios, and controlled proposals without silently changing the core OS.
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 as an independent design-review pass after rendering a website; evaluates macro, meso, micro craft, applies the Design Quality rubric, identifies root causes, and prioritizes changes without defending the implementation intent.
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。
Repair and triage guide for the NV oOS PHPUnit test suite — Docker test environment (incl. cross-worktree one-off runners), CI log triage, and 71 recurring root-cause patterns (hook resets, singleton interference, WP_Error envelope drift, coverage-manifest drift, preset-accounting gaps, and more — see the patterns section). Covers the cluster-by-cluster PR workflow against alpha-working and validation gates. Use when fixing failing PHPUnit tests, triaging CI logs, repairing test drift, deciding between a production fix and a test fix, or starting a new fix cluster.
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。
Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', or reviewing a small diff you don't trust.
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。
Background processing and heavy computations using Dart Isolates with Isolate.run(), compute() function, and platform channels. Use this skill when performing CPU-intensive operations without blocking UI (image processing, data parsing, encryption), implementing background tasks that prevent jank or frame drops, handling large file operations (JSON parsing, database migrations), running parallel computations, fixing UI freezes caused by main thread blocking, using compute() for one-off background work, creating long-lived Isolates with ReceivePort/SendPort, implementing multi-threaded algorithms, debugging isolate communication issues, or preventing memory leaks from unclosed ReceivePorts. Covers isolate spawn, message passing, ReceivePort cleanup (CRITICAL for leak prevention), SendPort communication patterns, error handling, serialization rules, and performance optimization for compute-heavy 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。
Reproduce, isolate, and diagnose a specific software failure before changing production behaviour, then propose the smallest safe fix with regression protection. Use whenever the user reports a bug, crash, error, stack trace, flaky test, incorrect output, "works on my machine," intermittent failure, regression after a deploy, or any behaviour that diverges from expectation and the cause is not obvious. Prefer this over jumping straight to a fix. Part of the audit suite; inherits the shared constitution, while its own job is proving causality.
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。
Enforces error handling standards: silent error prohibition, custom error class hierarchy (AppError base with category never-fallback / transient / permanent, cause preservation, ValidationError / UnauthorizedError / UpstreamError etc. — canonical definitions in PATTERNS.md), external-boundary normalization (normalizeExternalError), Result pattern (Result.ok/Result.fail), proper try-catch with error type checking, structured error logging with a single Logger contract, fallback prohibition categories (isNeverFallback), and HTTP status code mapping. Use when implementing error handling, reviewing catch blocks, or designing error responses.
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。