「proposals」の検索結果

Generate professional, jurisdiction-aware business documents: freelance contracts, project proposals, SOWs, NDAs, and MSAs. Structured Markdown output with docx conversion instructions. Covers US (Delaware), EU (GDPR), UK, and DACH (German law) jurisdictions. Not a substitute for legal counsel — use as strong starting points. Use when drafting a freelance contract, preparing a client proposal, writing an SOW for a new engagement, or producing an NDA before sharing sensitive material.

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。

Scaffolding that helps a writer build a story they already want to tell — fills in structure, hidden wound, theme, and prose from the writer's own material across seven narrative layers, deriving the spine from their notes as proposals they ratify. Bans generic AI patterns; scales short story to multi-book series. USE WHEN write story, fiction, novel, chapter, story bible, character arc, plot outline, creative writing, worldbuilding, draft story, help me write my story, develop my novel, layer my story, build out my book, I have notes for a story. NOT FOR narrative summaries of real content.

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 OpenShell RFC proposals in rfc/ from a design request. Use when the user asks to write, draft, start, create, or update an RFC, Request for Comments, architecture proposal, API proposal, process proposal, or cross-cutting design proposal that should follow the OpenShell RFC process and template.

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 challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.

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。

Draft client proposals and statements of work that scope, price, and win the 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。

Develop evidence-backed structural and architectural security hardening proposals from vulnerability disclosures, supplied findings, incident or assessment documents, source code, or a completed Codex Security scan. Use when a user asks for systemic improvements, alternatives beyond per-finding patches, before-and-after security architecture views, engineering tradeoff analysis, or an implementation-ready plan for a selected hardening option. Also use automatically after a Codex Security scan with reportable findings when the top-level scan workflow requests final-report hardening guidance.

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。

Develop evidence-backed structural and architectural security hardening proposals from vulnerability disclosures, supplied findings, incident or assessment documents, source code, or a completed Codex Security scan. Use when a user asks for systemic improvements, alternatives beyond per-finding patches, before-and-after security architecture views, engineering tradeoff analysis, or an implementation-ready plan for a selected hardening option. Also use automatically after a Codex Security scan with reportable findings when the top-level scan workflow requests final-report hardening guidance.

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 challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, stress test assumptions, audit evidence quality, or find blind spots before committing. Do NOT use for building plans, making decisions, or generating solutions — this skill only challenges and critiques. For a multi-agent panel that challenges and then commits to a verdict, use the-jury.

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。

A structured workflow for co-authoring high-signal docs (PRD, RFC, design docs, proposals, decision records). Use when the user needs to turn messy context into a readable artifact with clear goals, tradeoffs, and next steps. Emphasizes context capture, outline-first drafting, and context-free reader testing to catch blind spots.

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。

Apply the ScholarEval framework to systematically evaluate scholarly work across quality dimensions (novelty, rigor, significance, and clarity). Use to critique academic papers, research proposals, literature reviews, or grant applications and produce a structured, criterion-based assessment.

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。

Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission 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。

Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, and DARPA. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission 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。

Generate academic research proposals for PhD applications. Use when user asks to "write a research proposal", "create PhD proposal", "generate research plan", "撰写研究计划", "写博士申请", "doctoral proposal", or mentions specific research topics for PhD application. Supports STEM, humanities, and social sciences with field-specific adaptations. Follows Nature Reviews-style academic writing conventions. Supports both English and Chinese output based on user preference.

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 asked to compare, cross-review, merge, judge, choose, or arbitrate competing plans from multiple agents such as Codex and Claude Code; when given two or more proposed plans, session IDs, transcripts, plan documents, PR descriptions, or pasted strategies; or when the user wants one recommended execution plan after agents review each other's proposals.

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。

How to work in a Software Lifecycle project (the `software-lifecycle` starter pack): proposals → decisions → specs → postmortems, plus guides. Read when the project has these folders, or when asked how this project is organized. Carries the doc lifecycle, status flows, and per-folder agent behaviors so that guidance does not live inside template bodies or folder descriptions. The five workflows — frame a proposal, write a spec, record a decision, write a postmortem, review a design — each ship as their own sibling skill in this pack. Complements the platform `open-knowledge` skill; does not replace it.

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。

Frame a new design proposal (RFC-shape) under proposals/ — problem before solution, named beneficiary and observable change, real alternatives, honest drawbacks, and a live open-questions backlog. Read when asked to frame a proposal, write an RFC, propose a design, pitch a change, draft a PRD-style design doc, or open a design proposal for review. Do NOT read to record a decision after it is accepted (use record-a-decision), to write an implementation spec (use write-a-spec), to write a postmortem (use write-a-postmortem), or to review or critique an existing design (use review-a-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。

Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission 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。

LQF Machine Learning Expert Guide - Routed skill for ML/Statistical Modeling with Critical Discussion Mode. Triggers on: machine learning, modeling, prediction, training, classification, regression, clustering, deep learning, neural network, model evaluation, feature engineering, hyperparameter tuning, overfitting, underfitting, baseline, ablation study, critique my approach, review my model, is this a good idea, should I use, what's wrong with, evaluate my solution, challenge my assumptions, discuss my approach Engages in critical discussion with minimum 3 rounds of iterative refinement. Challenges both user proposals and own suggestions with fact-based critique. Demands evidence and baselines before accepting solutions.

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。

Research-backed evolution advice for your knowledge system. Analyzes health reports, friction patterns, and derivation history to propose specific changes with research justification. Never auto-implements — proposals require your approval.

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。

Challenge system assumptions against accumulated evidence. Triages observations and tensions, detects patterns, generates proposals. The scientific method applied to knowledge systems. Triggers on "/rethink", "review observations", "challenge assumptions", "what have I learned".

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。

[omh] Missed route or run lessons to record: classify and review self-improvement store routes as an auxiliary review lane before durable writes, then record workflow attempts as metadata-only traces, evals, review queues, patch proposals, regression cases, audits, indexes, and exports. Use when the user says: workflow-learning, workflow learning, route-signal, self-improvement store routing, store route review, memory skill wiki routing, learning trace, learning 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。

Comprehensive UX audit using IxDF's 7 factors, 5 usability characteristics, and 5 interaction dimensions. Holistic evaluation with redesign proposals based on user-centered design principles.

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 backtest iteration stagnation and generate structurally different strategy pivot proposals when parameter tuning reaches a local optimum.

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。

Reduce defensive disclaimers, stacked hedging, and self-protective narration when drafting, rewriting, or auditing proposals, articles, case studies, captions, and other reader-facing prose. Use when defensive wording is requested for review or appears in a draft, including wording the assistant adds. Preserve meaningful limits; do not perform general style cleanup or ordinary code 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。