4,607 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
壊れた GUID / fileID 参照を検出し、一意な置換先のみ `safe_fix`、それ以外は `decision_required` で保留する。ignore-guid file (`<scope>/config/ignore_guids.txt`) と allowlist branch 経由で noise を整理する。 トリガー: `validate_refs` で missing GUID / fileID が出た、Broken PPtr の調査。
At the end of a long working session, produce a counterfactual trace note — a backward walk through the session that identifies the small number of load-bearing moments (observations, failures, accidents, decisions) without which the final outcome would not exist. Use this whenever the user asks to "close the session", "run the butterfly", "trace back", "what actually mattered here", asks for a session retrospective, or asks how the session arrived at its result. Also use it when a session ends with a significant outcome (a fix, a design decision, a shipped artifact) and the user wants a note capturing why it happened, not just what happened. Do NOT use for simple summaries of short sessions — this skill is for causal tracing, and it only earns its cost when the session was long enough to contain real forks.
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。
Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) development patterns. Drug interaction checking, dose validation, clinical scoring (NEWS2, qSOFA), alert severity classification, and integration into EMR workflows. Use when building clinical decision support — drug interaction checks, dose validation, clinical scoring, or alert severity.
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。
Automated compliance checking against CIS, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, and SOC 2 benchmarks
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。
Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system 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。
Mint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate alone.
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 CIS Kubernetes Benchmark checks and remediate findings with kube-bench.
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。
Prepare comprehensive meeting assets including agendas, reference materials, decision logs, and action items. Use when user says "prepare meeting", "create agenda", "meeting prep", "会議準備", or needs bilingual (Japanese/English) meeting documentation for cross-regional teams. Triggers include requests for decision log templates, action item tracking, or compiling reference materials from project estimates and specs.
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。
新しいプロジェクトまたは既存リポジトリに Claude 用の kickoff 文脈を導入するスキル。 テンプレートとリポジトリ証跡、ユーザー入力をもとに `CLAUDE.md`、`docs/PROJECT_BRIEF.md`、 `docs/SKILL_ROUTING.md`、`docs/QUALITY_GATES.md`、`docs/TEST_STRATEGY.md`、 `docs/DECISION_LOG.md`、`docs/HIDDEN_CONTRACT_REGISTER.md`、 `docs/CROSS_MODULE_CONSISTENCY_MATRIX.md`、`.claude/rules/*`、 `.claude/commands/project-kickoff.md` を必要に応じて作成・更新する。 Use when starting a new project, retrofitting AI project context into an existing repository, bootstrapping Claude memory, or standardizing kickoff documents, rules, and slash-command scaffolding. Distinct from project-manager / project-plan-creator (which plan work), and from completion-quality-gate-designer / hidden-contract-investigator / safe-by-default-architect / cross-module-consistency-auditor / production-parity-test-designer (which deeply refine individual artifacts after bootstrap).
Fableクラスの思考プロセスを任意のモデルで再現する思考スキャフォールド。問いの再構築、 前提の検証、選択肢空間の展開、反証、確信度つきの収束という順序をフェーズとゲートで強制する。 設計判断・技術選定・調査・分析・提案など、結論を間違えるコストが高い非自明なタスクで使用。 「深く考えて」「幅広い視野で」「多角的に検討して」「Fableのように考えて」がトリガー。 Use when asked to think deeply, consider all angles, or for high-stakes decisions and analyses.
Relentless one-question-at-a-time interview (tappable options with a recommended answer) that sharpens a requirement, business plan, project plan, proposal, or raw idea through conversation, then writes it up as a brief with a glossary and decision log. Use whenever the user wants their thinking stress-tested or pinned down before acting — trigger phrases include "grill me", "grill this", "詰めて", "詰めたい", "壁打ち", "要件を固めたい", "企画を練りたい", "計画を整理したい", "アイデアをぶつけたい", "突っ込んで", "clarify", "質問して", "何が決まってないか教えて", or when the user describes a plan/idea vaguely and asks what to do next. Do NOT use for reviewing a finished document (use a document-review skill) or when the user just wants an answer, not questions.
Generate OpenVEX / CycloneDX VEX attestations from `.vulnetix/memory.yaml` triage decisions, optionally sign with cosign, optionally upload to Vulnetix and post to a GitHub PR. Use when documenting triage decisions for supply-chain consumers, attaching VEX to a CycloneDX SBOM, or satisfying customer attestation requests.
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。
Show what this repository has already decided about its vulnerabilities, read from the durable record rather than by scanning again — open versus resolved, the decision taken on each, and what is still waiting. Use when picking up triage after a break, auditing past decisions, onboarding to a repository with security history, or checking nothing high-severity is open before a release.
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。
Heuristic-first software surgery for proof-backed, minimal-diff implementation: Contract to Invariants to Cut Rationale to inevitable incision to Proof. Use when users say "run /tw-tk", "patch-first", "keep the diff small", "state contract + invariants", "one clear incision", "fix it with a validation signal", or orchestration cues like "workers use /tw-tk" / "internally use /tw-tk".
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。
Post-launch review of a shipped PRD against the brief's success metrics. Did we move the metric? What did the data actually show? Which assumptions held, which broke? Which accepted-gap decisions resolved (confirmed vs. invalidated)? What would we do differently? Triggers on "outcome review", "did it work", "post-launch review", "did we move the metric", "retro the feature", "was it worth it". Produces a Confluence outcome-review page and updates the brief + linked 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。
METAINFORMANT rules for directory src/metainformant/math/decision_theory. 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。
Knowledge base from CISA Cross-Sector Cybersecurity Performance Goals 2.0. Use for prioritized IT/OT baseline cyber goals aligned to NIST CSF 2.0 (including GOVERN), critical-infrastructure hygiene, MSP/supply-chain expectations, and board-friendly outcome language. Covers CPG 2.0 goals only; does not replace full CSF programs, sector-specific goals (SSGs), or CSET tooling detail.
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 Systems Engineering Manual (SEM) v1.0.1. Use for civil-agency systems engineering as the FAA practices it inside the Acquisition Management System (AMS) and the National Airspace System (NAS): the five-phase AMS lifecycle and its decision points; operational concept development and implementation-free functional analysis (ConOps, FFBD/N², CMLs); requirements analysis and architectural design synthesis (PRS→MRS, the PRD ratchet pPRD→iPRD→fPRD, RAM, ISEF/DoDAF views, CPRs); the seven technical management disciplines (Integrated Technical Management/SEMP, Interface Management/IRD-ICD, Risk-Issue-Opportunity, Configuration Management, SE Information Management, Decision Analysis, Verification & Validation); and the specialty disciplines (RMA via Service Threads/STLSC, Life Cycle Engineering, E3/Spectrum, Human Factors, Information Security via the NIST RMF, System Safety via the SMS, and Hazardous Materials/Environmental/EOSH). Scope limits: this is FAA-specific guidance, not policy — it is a tailorable menu that points outward to companion handbooks (FAA-HDBK-006A for RMA, the SMS Manual, the NIST 800-series) rather than restating generic SE theory; it is thin on detailed cost estimating, contracting/FAR law, software-development methodology, named anti-pattern catalogues, and any non-FAA or non-civil-aviation lifecycle. Source has no page numbers in the extracted text (~360 pp.).
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 Systems Engineering Handbook (NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev 2). Use for NASA's systems-engineering process model — the SE Engine and 17 common technical processes, the program/project life cycle (Pre-Phase A through F), Key Decision Points and technical reviews (MCR/SRR/PDR/CDR/…), stakeholder expectations, technical requirements, design solution, product verification and validation, and crosscutting technical management (planning, risk, configuration, interfaces, data, assessment, decision analysis). Strong for aerospace/spaceflight project SE and lifecycle gating; NASA-specific terminology (KDPs, NPR 7123.1).
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。
MBSR fundamentals, body scan, and breathing exercises. Evidence-based mindfulness techniques according to Jon Kabat-Zinn for everyday life.
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。
Stabilization techniques: Grounding, safe place, containment, and breathing exercises. Immediate techniques for acute distress and panic attacks.
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。
Maintains four living project files (overview and progress log, decision log, RAID log, links) from the mail, channel posts, documents and meeting notes the user attaches or the agent can reach, returns each touched file complete in the chat for the user to save, and builds a weekly DRAFT status report from those files. Use when the user asks to "set up tracking for project X", "catch the project files up", "log this decision against the project", "add this risk to the RAID log", "save this link to the project" or "write this week's status report". Do not use for reviewing an existing RAID log for stale or ownerless entries, use raid-log-review instead; for an HTML status page, use project-dashboard-builder; for minutes of one meeting, use meeting-minutes-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。
Turns a schedule extract (milestone list or planning tool export) and the period's status notes into a DRAFT plain-language slip explanation: which milestones and activities slipped and by how many working days, arithmetic shown, why per the notes as verbatim fragments with source and date, what each slip pushes next per the extract, and the decision each slip needs framed as a question with the options the notes propose and the owner the governance documents name, every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "explain the schedule slip", "what slipped this month and why", "write the schedule commentary for the steering pack", "put the delay in plain language for the sponsor" or "what decisions do these slips need". Do not use for the weekly status report, use project-status-tracker instead; for cost variances, use budget-variance-explainer; for one sprint's carry-over, use sprint-review-summary. 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。