2,215 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Convert markdown into a self-contained HTML slide deck with layouts, speaker notes, keyboard navigation, and a content-density linter. Use when building a deck from markdown, cutting an overloaded deck, or timing a talk.
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。
Convert authored markdown into a polished self-contained HTML document with a table of contents, numbered figures and tables, cross-references, footnotes, and print-ready CSS. Use when publishing a report, whitepaper, or memo.
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。
Initialize a PM Brain — a markdown-native second brain for a product operator (PM, product lead, founder, or anyone accountable for one product or initiative) doing judgment-heavy work with scattered inputs. Detects greenfield vs. migration mode, runs a focused interview, copies the deterministic scaffold into the working directory, populates placeholders from interview answers, runs a self-test, and commits. Use when invoked via `/pm-brain` or when the user asks to set up a PM Brain.
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。
The canonical way to run agent-relay - self-bootstrap the local broker and autonomously spawn, monitor, and coordinate a team of worker agents without human intervention. Covers infrastructure startup, agent spawning, lifecycle monitoring, message-based reading via the relay MCP, and team coordination.
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 has run multiple evaluation skills and wants a comprehensive analysis — maturity assessment, cross-skill signals, trends, prioritized actions, and an executive summary. Also use when the user mentions eval health check, evaluation audit, ship readiness, evaluation maturity, or "how good is my evaluation system itself." This is a read-only analysis 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。
Detect whether an API endpoint is backed by genuine Claude (not a wrapper, proxy, or impersonator) using 9 weighted rule-based checks that mirror the claude-verify project. Also extracts injected system prompts from providers that override Claude's identity. Fully self-contained — copy the code below and run, no extra packages beyond httpx. Use when the user wants to verify a Claude API key or endpoint, check if a third-party Claude service is authentic, audit API providers for Claude authenticity, test multiple models in parallel, or discover what system prompt a provider has injected.
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 fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Sonnet. When invoked by slash command or by name, spawns a Sonnet subagent that follows the staged loop — stage plan, parallel delegation, a failable verification check at each stage, and a skeptical self-review before delivery; a wording-only request runs the loop inline on the current model. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic/"deep work" handling on Sonnet.
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 staged execution discipline on large tasks: a written stage plan, parallel delegation where the runtime supports it, a failable verification check at each stage, and a skeptical self-review before delivery. Trigger when the user explicitly asks OR when the task objectively spans multiple files, sources, or sessions. Do NOT trigger on ordinary multi-step requests that a direct attempt handles fine (autonomous triggering only; explicit invocation always runs).
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。
Automatic final verification pass on completed deliverables. Runs at the end of every fable-mode run — those skills invoke it before delivery. Also triggers when the user says "double check this". Uses a panel of fresh checker agents when spawning is authorized (otherwise a cold self-check) to verify the finished output — not to redo the task. Any FAIL gets fixed and re-checked before delivery.
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。
When the user wants to set up a recurring, self-running marketing workflow — a repeatable loop an AI agent runs on a cadence (weekly, daily, on a trigger) rather than a one-off task. Also use when the user mentions 'marketing loop,' 'recurring marketing workflow,' 'automate my marketing,' 'marketing on autopilot,' 'weekly marketing review,' 'ad fatigue check,' 'content refresh loop,' 'churn watch,' 'ranking drop alert,' 'always-on marketing,' 'marketing automation workflow,' or 'run this every week.' Use this to pick, adapt, and schedule an ongoing marketing loop that orchestrates the other marketing skills. For one-off marketing ideas, see marketing-ideas. For the experimentation loop specifically, see ab-testing.
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 an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the opposing-counsel discipline twice: an unrestrained first pass, then the same instrument turned on that pass to cut every point that collapses under challenge - attacks on conceded facts, wrong-forum objections, speculation about documents and motives, gotchas with innocent explanations, overclaims, self-refuting assertions, and padding. The deliverable is one standalone attack containing only what can be defended, capped at five heads, not a discussion of the discarded draft. Use to attack, stress-test, red-team or rebut a submission, brief, motion, witness statement, letter or structured legal reasoning. Triggers on "attack this but only with points that hold", "no cheap shots", "what survives reply", "which points can I actually defend", "give me the version I can file", "double-pass adversarial review". Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong or scattershot. Formal British English.
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。
Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty, nonobviousness, utility, and soundness framework, connector-aware research, claim-specific tests, and a sustainable adversarial pass. Produces a self-contained green-, yellow-, or red-light report. Use when a law professor or law student asks whether a claim is viable, novel, publishable, preempted, useful, worth pursuing, or better than competing topics; or wants a thesis stress-tested, narrowed, repaired, or compared. No connector is required: use connected legal and scholarly research when available, public sources otherwise, and disclose any no-research fallback.
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。
Guide to analyze a current work session and propose improvements to skills. Use (1) automatically after working with a skill to capture learnings, (2) when the user suggests improvements, corrections, or additions during a skill-related session, or (3) when the user manually invokes `self-improve`.
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 high-fidelity interactive legal assessment as a single self-contained HTML artifact. Output includes a live countdown timer, contract review tasks with hover-annotated problem clauses, candidate answer textareas, model answers hidden behind reveal blocks, scenario-based legal memo tasks, strategy and function-building questions, and a pre-submission checklist that encodes the marking criteria. Use when the user needs to (1) assess a legal candidate with a realistic timed exercise, (2) train or onboard junior lawyers using problem sets rather than doctrine, (3) help a candidate prepare for a real take-home assessment they are facing, (4) build educational materials for law students, in-house teams, or compliance training, or (5) produce scenario-based training modules on specific legal topics. Triggers on "legal test", "take-home", "mock exam", "contract redline exercise", "candidate assessment", "legal training exercise", "practice test", or similar phrasing even when informal.
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 any OFAC or OFSI enforcement action — by URL, pasted text, or uploaded document — and produce a structured root cause analysis as a formatted Excel (.xlsx) spreadsheet. Use this skill whenever a user names, links to, pastes, or uploads an OFAC or OFSI enforcement action and asks for any of the following: root cause analysis, compliance gaps, what went wrong, lessons learned, organizational self-assessment, or remediation planning. Also trigger when a user asks "analyze this enforcement action", "what were the root causes", "turn this into a checklist", or "how do I make sure this doesn't happen to us". Outputs a single-sheet .xlsx table with six columns: Root Cause | What Went Wrong | How It Went Wrong | What Could Have Stopped It | Is my organization immune to this? (Yes/No/Partial) | Notes.
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。
Condense a scholarly legal article by moving nonessential detail from the body into substantive footnotes while preserving every word and keeping the argument self-sufficient. Handles Markdown and Word (.docx), integrates moved material with existing notes, measures a user-specified relegation fraction (25% by default), and delivers a move-by-move memo. Use when asked to "push detail into footnotes," "relegate to footnotes," "footnote the caveats," "move the digressions down," or tighten a dense draft without deleting content. Word output requires file access plus document-conversion and rendering support; when those capabilities are unavailable, deliver Markdown and the memo or ask for a convertible source.
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。
Export Administration Regulations (EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774) compliance advisor — ECCN classification across all 10 CCL categories and 5 product groups (A-E), EAR99 determination, jurisdiction analysis (EAR vs ITAR order of review), license requirement analysis via Country Chart, all license exceptions (LVS, GBS, CIV, TMP, RPL, GOV, TSU, ENC, TSR, APP, BAG, AVS, ACE), end-user/end-use controls (Entity List, Denied Persons List, Unverified List, MEU List), deemed export rules, Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR), de minimis thresholds, 10 General Prohibitions, SNAP-R license applications, voluntary self-disclosure, civil/criminal penalties, Export Compliance Program (ECP) design, and EAR vs ITAR jurisdiction determination. Use for any dual-use export control, CCL classification, or BIS compliance question.
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 builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.
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 litigation chronology from the disclosure bundle itself — every entry attributed to its source document, behind a CPR 31.22 implied-undertaking check, because documents disclosed in English proceedings may only be used for those proceedings. Adds a privilege screen and case-theory significance tagging, so the output is court-facing work product, not a loose timeline. Use when the user asks to build a chronology or timeline from a disclosure bundle, a matter file, or witness statements, or says 'build the chron', 'what happened when', or needs a Statement of Facts ready timeline.
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。
Expert CMMC 2.0 (Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification) advisor for US defense contractors and subcontractors in the Defense Industrial Base (DIB). Use this skill whenever a user asks about CMMC 2.0, CMMC Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3, DoD cybersecurity compliance, NIST SP 800-171, CUI (Controlled Unclassified Information) protection, System Security Plan (SSP), Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M), C3PAO assessments, DIBCAC audits, self-assessment, SPRS score, or any requirement under DFARS 252.204-7012 or 7021. Also trigger for: "CMMC gap analysis", "CMMC readiness", "FCI protection", "CUI scoping", "CMMC practices", "DoD contract cybersecurity", "defense supply chain security", or "prime contractor flow-down requirements".
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 if-then implementation intentions and WOOP plans for specific student behaviour change goals. Use when students know what to do but struggle to follow through on habits or routines.
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 scaffolds that gradually increase student choice, voice, and ownership within a learning task. Use when students depend heavily on teacher direction and need to develop autonomy.
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。
Select evidence-based study strategies matched to material type, learning goal, and student habits. Use when advising students on revision techniques, homework, or independent study approaches.
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。
Build a library of metacognitive prompts targeting planning, monitoring, or evaluation for a specific task. Use when developing students' thinking-about-thinking during independent 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。