「decide」の検索結果

Decide when Zoom MCP is the right fit and produce a safe setup plan for Claude. Use when planning AI workflows over Zoom data, deciding between MCP and REST, or defining a hybrid MCP architecture.

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。

Decide who owns an unrouted lead or opportunity and manage the handoff - deterministic routing by the org's own rules, a routing card the human router accepts or overrides, and drafted handoff notes. Use when the user says "route this lead", "who should own [lead/opp]", "work the routing queue", "assign [company] to a rep", or on a scheduled intake sweep.

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。

Search across all connected sources in one query. Trigger with "find that doc about...", "what did we decide on...", "where was the conversation about...", or when looking for a decision, document, or discussion that could live in chat, email, cloud storage, or a project tracker.

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 when and why tests broke on main: bisect a Swift package suite on CI across old commits, read the failure matrix, and decide per test whether the test went stale or the code regressed. Use when a suite is red on main, when PR CI only ran filtered tests and the full suite has drifted, or when asked which PR broke a test.

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 managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).

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 plan a content strategy, decide what content to create, or figure out what topics to cover. Also use when the user mentions "content strategy," "what should I write about," "content ideas," "blog strategy," "topic clusters," or "content planning." For writing individual pieces, see copywriting. For SEO-specific audits, see seo-audit.

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。

Mentor for embedded and IoT hardware projects. Helps select MCUs, dev boards, and toolchains, decides where sensor readings end up (phone, PC, dashboard, or alert), and gives time/cost estimates and a phased build plan from breadboard MVP to production PCB. Use when the user mentions embedded, IoT, microcontroller, ESP32, STM32, Arduino, Raspberry Pi Pico, firmware, PCB, KiCad, EasyEDA, PlatformIO, MQTT, Home Assistant, ESPHome, Grafana, an IoT dashboard, seeing sensor data on a phone, or asks for hardware tool recommendations, project planning, or cost/time estimates for an electronics project.

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 a startup is approached by a prospective partner and someone has to decide should we sign this partner, at what partner tier (referral / reseller / OEM / SI-consulting / strategic alliance), with what joint GTM commitment, and at what revshare. Classifies partner tier from independent-demand evidence vs. preferential-terms hunting, designs a 90-day joint GTM plan, models revshare against direct-sale margin, and surfaces kill criteria for unwinding under-performing partnerships. For Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs doing reseller agreement, OEM deal, or strategic alliance review — not technical sale enablement, not channel cost economics, not M&A.

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。

Phase 3 of building a Claude Managed Agent — the bounded grade→iterate loop. Define a CMA outcome (a required markdown rubric graded by an isolated grader), read each verdict, decide the next move (sharpen / re-run / promote to schedule), and once a version passes, run held-back eval cases in parallel. Use when the user says "grade my agent", "make it pass the rubric", "iterate until it's good", "is it good enough", or when the orchestrator routes phase=grade-iterate. outcome_builder.py builds the user.define_outcome payload (rubric required, max_iterations clamped 1..20 — never unbounded); verdict_reader.py reads the grader result and recommends the next move; eval_scaffold.py generates held-back cases + a parallel run plan (capped at the 25-thread CMA ceiling). Distinct from stage-launch (first launch) and run-without-you (scheduling).

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。

Mounts Cloud Storage buckets on Google Cloud as a POSIX file system using Cloud Storage FUSE (and the gcsfuse CLI tool). Use when interacting with the gcsfuse CLI or Cloud Storage FUSE mounts: decide whether FUSE, native gs:// reads, or Filestore/Managed Lustre fits a workload, deploy tuned mounts on GKE, Compute Engine, or Cloud Run, enable and size file, stat, and list caches, tune mount flags (--implicit-dirs) or config-file settings, apply workload profiles, keep ML checkpointing safe (rename atomicity, hierarchical namespace/HNS, close-time finalization, concurrent writers), or diagnose slow training, low throughput, or bill spikes with gcsfuse metrics. Covers mount semantics, gcsfuse CLI and config files, GKE gcsfuse CSI driver (Workload Identity principal:// bindings, profile StorageClasses, sidecar sizing), and Cloud Run volume mounts. Don't use for bucket administration or data management without a mount (google-cloud-storage-basics) or fully POSIX-compliant shared file systems (Filestore, Managed Lustre; use gke-storage).

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 continual-harness refinement protocol — how an agent inspects its recent trajectory for failure signatures and improves its own harness (agent prompts, sub-agents, skills, memory) in place, mid-session, landing changes on the session branch immediately and promoting them to `main` only through a change request. Load this skill when a refinement prompt arrives mid-session, when the `harness-reflector` agent runs, or whenever you decide your own scaffolding needs repair. The sub-agent fan-out in this skill is for the top-level `harness-reflector` run only; if you loaded this as a subagent, do the four passes yourself and skip the fan-out.

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 WHICH new skills you should create, from your own work history plus your satisfaction/frustration signals. Read-only and proposal-only: it surfaces recurring pain that no existing skill, loop, or workflow covers, then hands you a ranked shortlist to build with CreateSkill. It never creates or edits a skill itself. Frustration is a first-class signal (a topic can look 'covered' while you keep hitting the same wall inside it), so it reads low ratings and recurrence markers, not just session topics. USE WHEN should I create a skill, what skills do I need, suggest skills, skill gap, based on my recent work, am I missing a skill, what should I build. NOT FOR creating/validating/testing/optimizing an individual skill (use CreateSkill) — this only decides WHAT to build, not how.

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。

Get work done that needs another person's own logins, files or memory. Decide whether to just do it yourself, and if not, ask that person by DM with the full request.

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。

Answer "what did we say, decide, or promise" from Circleback meetings — search by attendee, company, tag, or date before keyword, read the notes before the transcript, and cite the meeting behind every claim. Use when the user asks what happened on a call, what a customer or teammate said, what was agreed, or refers to a meeting, sync, demo, or interview.

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 that a tRPC change is safe for released desktop, mobile, CLI, and SDK builds, pick the compatible pattern, and decide when a deprecated procedure can be removed. Use when changing, renaming, or removing an existing procedure, input field, or output field in packages/trpc or packages/host-service, when reviewing such a PR, or when a deploy broke released clients.

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。

Structured intake — practice-area templates, cross-area issue spotting, conflict flags, and triage classification. Produces a formatted case summary the student analyzes and the professor reviews. Does NOT decide case acceptance. Use when starting a new client intake, running an intake interview, or writing up a new client's situation.

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 "triage a vulnerability report", "assess a CVE", "evaluate a bug bounty submission", "decide if a finding is valid", "review a security finding", "dismiss a vulnerability", "should we fix this CVE", "prioritize a vulnerability report", or needs to determine whether an incoming vulnerability report warrants investigation. Applies 7 brocards (rules of thumb) to systematically accept, dismiss, or request more information on vulnerability reports, or needs to filter raw findings from agentic vulnerability discovery pipelines before human 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。

Help engineers evaluate a local skill or plugin, explain why it scored that way, show what to fix first, measure real token usage, benchmark starter scenarios, or decide what to run next. Use when the user says things like "evaluate this skill", "give me an analysis of the game dev skill", "why did this score that way", "what should I fix first", "measure the real token usage of this skill", or "what should I run next?".

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。

Assess whether structured data, query results, dashboards, or analytical evidence are trustworthy enough to use. Use when the task is to check data quality, reconcile conflicting sources or metric definitions, or decide whether evidence is safe to cite.

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 you have a task and must decide WHO does it — yourself, a spawned subagent, or another agent in the topology that already holds the context. The rule: how much would a blank slate have to read in to do this correctly? A lot → route to a context-holding agent; a little → subagent; unsure → a real agent or yourself. NOT the mechanics of fanning out (that's dispatching-parallel-agents / subagent-driven-development) — this is the who/whether decision, and the failure mode that makes teams abandon subagents.

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 a product sunset end to end — decide, align, plan, prepare, announce, close. Use when you need the whole EOL process, not just one artifact.

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 an Opportunity Solution Tree from outcomes to opportunities, solutions, and tests. Use when a stakeholder request needs problem framing before you decide what to build.

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。

Implement a work already planned: extracts a checklist, builds it, and proves every check with an independent verifier. Use when the user says "extract a checklist", "build this ticket", "implement this spec", or "tlc-implement". Do NOT use when nobody has decided what to build, or to design the 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。

Turns decided work — a PRD, design doc, RFC, or thread — into tasks a builder can act on without guessing. Finds slices that each prove something, grounds them in the code, and writes intent, observable criteria with concrete values, the boundary, what the change disturbs, and only the decisions that are hard to reverse. Walks every surface the work exposes and sweeps the nine unwritten requirements, recording each landing as a criterion already in the source, existing behaviour, n/a, or Unresolved — never as a criterion the walk invented. Defaults to one task per source. Use when the user says "write the task", "cut this PRD into tasks", "turn this design doc into work", or "tlc-plan". Do NOT use for discovery itself or to implement — a one-line ticket is a decision; a blank wish is not.

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。