「condition」の検索結果

GStack guard method for strengthening scope boundaries, forbidden actions, stop conditions, and validation gates for an agent or workstream.

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。

Conditional discipline for projects hosted on a git forge (GitHub, GitLab, Forgejo, …): branch↔PR mapping, self-contained PR prose, review-on-forge, merge consent, and the forge audit. Trigger when: - Opening, updating, reviewing, or merging a pull/merge request. - A campaign's integration branch is ready to surface on a forge. - Auditing forge-side presence at merge-consent or campaign CLOSE. - Prompt contains: /forge, pull request, PR body, merge request, forge discipline, PR review, stacked PR.

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。

Analyze market conditions, geographic opportunities, pricing, consumer behavior, and product validation across Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram, Booking.com, and TripAdvisor.

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。

Runs a bounded spec-build-review development loop with explicit scope, stop conditions, and human approval gates for risky or ambiguous work.

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 a defensible cybersecurity risk assessment using the NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 methodology: prepare scope and a risk model, identify threat sources and threat events, identify vulnerabilities and predisposing conditions, determine likelihood and impact, compute risk, and communicate results as a prioritized risk register. Use when an organization needs an actual risk *assessment* (not a maturity score), when a control framework (CSF, ISO 27001, RMF, SOC 2, PCI) requires a documented risk analysis as input, when leadership asks "what are our top risks and how bad are they", when assessing risk for a new system or major change, or when building a risk register from scratch. This is the methodology that feeds framework selection, ATO packages, and treatment decisions. Keywords: risk assessment, NIST 800-30, threat modeling, likelihood and impact, risk register, risk analysis, threat sources, vulnerabilities, risk determination, qualitative risk, risk matrix, residual risk, risk treatment.

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 creating UAT (User Acceptance Testing) test cases in Excel format for Salesforce CRM projects. It generates standardized test case documents with summary sheets and detailed test case lists, following a specific format structure with test case ID, priority, category, scenario, preconditions, test steps, expected results, and acceptance criteria.

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。

Professional contract review skill for business agreements including NDAs, MSAs, SLAs, SOWs, and software license agreements. Provides systematic clause-by-clause analysis, risk assessment with quantified scoring, red flag detection, and negotiation guidance. Use this skill when reviewing vendor contracts, partnership agreements, service agreements, or any business contract requiring risk evaluation and negotiation preparation. Triggers include "review this contract", "analyze this NDA", "check this agreement for risks", "prepare for contract negotiation", or when evaluating terms and conditions.

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 <clear trigger condition for this skill>.

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。

반복되는 null 검사를 Special Case(Null Object) 클래스로 대체하여 다형성으로 처리. "null 객체 패턴", "null 체크 반복 제거", "특수 케이스 클래스", "/introduce-special-case" 요청 시 사용. 단, 단순 전제 조건 명시는 /introduce-assertion, 타입별 분기 전반은 /replace-conditional-with-poly가 적합. /introduce-special-case [commit-ref]로 호출.

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 extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review.

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。

Econometrics skill for machine learning methods in causal inference. Activates when the user asks about: "causal forest", "generalized random forest", "GRF", "double machine learning", "DML", "debiased machine learning", "LASSO for variable selection", "post-LASSO", "heterogeneous treatment effects", "CATE", "conditional average treatment effect", "BLP analysis", "CLAN analysis", "causal tree", "honest estimation", "因果森林", "双重机器学习", "异质性处理效应", "条件平均处理效应", "LASSO变量选择", "机器学习因果推断", "去偏机器学习"

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 NIST SP 800-160 Vol 1 (Engineering Trustworthy Secure Systems) and Vol 2 (Developing Cyber-Resilient Systems). Use for systems security engineering (SSE): the three SSE framework contexts (problem/solution/trustworthiness), the 30+ design principles for trustworthy secure design, trustworthiness and assurance/assurance cases, security across the ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 life-cycle process groups, and the Vol 2 cyber-resiliency engineering framework — 4 goals (anticipate/withstand/recover/adapt), objectives, 14 techniques, implementation approaches, and design principles for the APT/adverse-conditions threat model. Bridges systems engineering and the NIST security cluster (CSF/SSDF/RMF). Does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 process text, nor cover SP 800-53 control catalogs in depth.

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 course outline from a training need and audience: learning objectives with an observable verb, condition and standard, modules in a stated order with a duration basis and sources, activities and an assessment plan aligned objective by objective, and a coverage table showing what each objective still lacks. Never sets a pass mark, declares learners competent or invents content. Use when the user asks to "build a course outline", "design a training programme for", "turn this need into modules and objectives", "draft the curriculum for this workshop" or "what should this training cover". Do not use for quiz items from finished content, use training-quiz-builder instead; for needs from surveys and manager notes, use training-needs-synthesis; for a new starter'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。

Answers an employee's or manager's HR policy question strictly from the policy documents the user supplies or the agent can reach as knowledge: a DRAFT answer that quotes the governing clause with its document, version and clause reference, lists the conditions and exceptions the text states, returns UNKNOWN where the documents are silent and names the role to ask. Never invents a rule, fills a gap from general practice or decides an individual's case. Use when the user asks to check a policy, for example "what does the policy say about", "am I entitled to", "how many days of leave do I get", "what is the process for requesting", "does the handbook allow" or "which clause covers". Do not use for comparing two policy versions or briefing a change, use policy-change-briefing 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。

Checks an extracted PFD register as a process model and returns findings and unknowns only: connectivity closure, stream numbering, presence of design conditions, equipment duty text, phase and service labels, package and off-sheet scope, boundaries, operating cases, and agreement between the drawing and attached process documents, then holds at gate G2. Creates no design values. Use when the user asks to "check the process model", "verify connectivity" or "is the PFD ready for enrichment" after gate G1 and before enrichment. Do not use for extraction from the drawing, use pfd-intake-and-extraction instead; do not use to propose lines or instruments, use piping-enrichment. 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 an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-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。

Check whether something was already decided before proposing it: searches the decisions journal, the declined registry and the rules codex plus semantic search, and returns what was decided, why, what was rejected, and under what condition to revisit. Triggers: "/precedent <topic>", "did we already decide this".

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。

Look up the registry of declined and deferred decisions, so the same idea is never re-pitched: what was rejected, why, and under what condition to revisit. Read-only, and can also run the detector for new rejections in recent sessions. Triggers: "/declined", "did we reject this 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。

Configures the JetFormBuilder action events system — the named events (DEFAULT.PROCESS, DEFAULT.REQUIRED, GATEWAY.SUCCESS, GATEWAY.FAILED, BAD.REQUEST, ON.DYNAMIC_STATE, never) that decide WHEN a Form Action runs. Covers declaring supported / unsupported / required events on a custom action, the validation precedence inside Base_Event::is_valid_action(), the multi-event subscription model the action editor exposes, and how to register a brand-new event type via the 'jet-form-builder/event-types' filter using Base_Event, Base_Action_Event, or Base_Gateway_Event. Use when an action needs to run only on payment callbacks, only on validation failure, only on a specific conditional state, after another action's hidden flow, or when the plugin needs to define its own event class (e.g. for inbound webhooks). Triggers on mentions of "JFB events", "action events", "GATEWAY.SUCCESS", "DEFAULT.PROCESS", "supported_events", "unsupported_events", "get_required_events", "Base_Event", "Base_Gatewa...

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。

Designs and reviews the internal architecture of a WordPress plugin — folder layout, PSR-4 one-class-per-file discipline, Schema/Constants placement, composition-root vs singleton decisions, conditional asset enqueueing, script config via wp_add_inline_script, and prefixed custom-hook naming. Use when scaffolding includes/src, reviewing class organization, asset enqueue code, repeated strings, or "should I make this a singleton" decisions.

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。

Asset and IT register: serial, model, condition, assignee, location, purchase value, warranty expiry and return date, as CSV, SQL, JSON Schema or Notion on request. Use for asset audits.

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。

Analyze market conditions, geographic opportunities, pricing, consumer behavior, and product validation across Google Maps, Facebook, Instagram, Booking.com, and TripAdvisor.

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。

Runs a bounded spec-build-review development loop with explicit scope, stop conditions, and human approval gates for risky or ambiguous work.

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 "check if our surfaces have drifted from the canon", "watch for competitor repositioning", or "define when we should reposition"; produces a drift report — self-drift per flagship surface vs the narrative-registry canon over time (via wayback.py, change history Measured with as-of dates), competitor-repositioning alerts, an explicit repositioning-trigger condition set, and a D1/W1/M1 message-shift retro (intended vs actual pull-through, evidence-labeled) — feeding the TALE L drift-audit sub-items and the narrative-whiplash guardrail fact base. Not for the first-time consistency check before a surface ships — use narrative-cascade-planner; not for computing the TALE profile result or running the vetoes — use narrative-quality-auditor; not for echo-rate / AI-answer resonance measurement — use narrative-resonance-monitor. 自漂移监测/竞品重定位告警/重定位触发/叙事漂移复盘

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。