1.2万 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when advising, planning, reviewing, reporting, operating, or improving CTO and technology leadership work across strategy, cybersecurity management, SME/COE, functional and technical requirements, framework selection, people, organization, delivery, risk, KPI, roadmap, budgeting, governance, audit, R&D, stakeholder communication, culture, politics, and sector-specific leadership.
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。
SaaSサービス向けのサービス仕様書を作成します。運用設計書や要件定義書をインプットとして活用し、経済産業省「SaaS向けSLAガイドライン」に準拠したサービス仕様書を生成します。ガイドライン準拠の7カテゴリ（可用性、信頼性、データ管理、セキュリティ、サポート、拡張性、コンプライアンス）に加え、サービス概要・料金・責任分界を含む全10セクションを網羅します。
Answer whether a specific advisory reaches anything in THIS repository — which manifest declares the package, at what version, whether the version is in range, and whether the vulnerable code is reachable. Use when someone asks "does CVE-… affect us", when triaging an advisory against a real codebase, or before spending effort on a fix.
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 a runnable exploit-validation command (Nuclei template, Metasploit module hint, AI-assisted Python script, or curl-based PoC) against a user-specified authorised target. Use when validating that a fix actually closed the vulnerability path, confirming a patch deployed correctly, or producing a copy-pasteable test command for QA. The skill never executes — the user 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。
Typosquat and malicious-package detection across installed dependencies (or a single prospective addition) — cross-checks AI-malware family intelligence, package-name similarity to known popular packages, low maintainer-health signals. Use when auditing a freshly-onboarded repo, vetting a single suspicious package, gating CI on supply-chain risk, or investigating an incident.
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。
Static application security testing (SAST) for changed source files — Vulnetix's built-in rule set plus optional Semgrep augmentation when `.semgrep` config is present. Use when reviewing a PR for code-level vulnerabilities, scanning a feature branch before merge, gating CI on critical findings, or running rule-specific checks for a known weakness class.
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-fix verification — re-scan the repo, gate on `--exploits weaponized --severity high`, recheck the specific CVE against the new installed version, write the verdict to `.vulnetix/memory.yaml`. Use when confirming a fix landed, validating a version bump did not introduce regressions, or producing a clean-scan attestation for compliance.
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。
Proactive secure-coding coach scoped to the file or topic you are working on — surfaces relevant SAST rule IDs, CWE patterns, language-specific PASS/FAIL code snippets. Use when about to write auth, crypto, SQL, deserialization, file-handling, or template code; coaching juniors; pair-programming a security-sensitive change.
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 six-year-old code reviewer who asks "why?" about everything. Catches over-engineering, confusing names, and unnecessary complexity, then corrects the code according to the language spec, but through kids eyes, maintaining simplicity and readability.
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。
Translate a fuzzy analytical question into a rigorous investigation plan. Interrogates the ask, grounds the plan in the available data dictionary, applies analytical best practices, and produces a structured brief of query specifications for a downstream query-writing skill. Plans, does not write SQL. Use when: "why did X drop", "is there a relationship between A and B", "who are our highest-value customers", "what's driving the change in Y", "investigate this trend", "design an analysis for", "scope this analytical question". (narrative-common)
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。
設計と実装を「最小で正確」に進め、差分思考で品質と速度を両立する。設計の溶け込み（責務不明/重複/暫定対応）を防ぎ、レビュー可能な変更へ落とし込むときに使う。
Compare standardized metrics across multiple ego-benchmark-harness runs by recalculating them from tasks.jsonl and session JSONL, never from HTML reports. Covers overall aggregates (success rate/average score), Odysseys per-rubric pass rates, duration distributions (avg/p50/p90/max), turns/tools/cost, error and exception counts, per-task success matrices, helper distributions, and the share of DOM operations. Use whenever users ask to compare data or metrics across runs, calculate aggregate/Odysseys/duration/turn/error/helper metrics, inspect differences among runs, or compare multiple rwb/real-world-bench runs. Use pi-session-analyzer instead for deep forensic analysis of why an individual task was slow or failed.
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 Codex provider rollout JSONL and ego-benchmark-harness run artifacts to identify slow or failed individual tasks, tool retries, token/cost anomalies, and differences in agent execution paths. Use when users ask to analyze a Codex session or rollout, explain why a Codex task was slow or failed, inspect a Codex provider execution trace, compare Codex runs, count function_call or tool output events, or investigate agent-home/.codex/sessions.
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。
Reconstructed reference notes on US NRC software assurance guidance for digital computer software in nuclear power plant safety systems, built from seven public-domain sources (Regulatory Guide 1.168 Revision 2, July 2013; Regulatory Guides 1.169, 1.170, 1.171, 1.172, and 1.173 Revision 1, July 2013; NUREG-0800 Branch Technical Position 7-14 Revision 6, August 2016; pinned 2026-10-12). Use for software life cycle process questions, software requirements specifications, software configuration management plans, verification and validation with reviews and audits, test documentation and unit testing, and what NRC staff examine in a BTP 7-14 software review of plans, implementation, and design outputs. SCOPE LIMITS: NRC Regulatory Guides and the BTP 7-14 staff review position only; the endorsed IEEE standards (IEEE Std 603-1991, 7-4.3.2-2003, 828-2005, 829-2008, 830-1998, 1008-1987, 1012-2004, 1028-2008, 1074-2006), IEC 60880, IEC 61513, IEC 62138, and IAEA guides are cited by designation and edition only, with no standard text; RG 1.152 Rev 4, BTP 7-18, BTP 7-19, other SRP Chapter 7 sections, and NUREG/CR contractor reports are outside the pack; reflects the pinned 2013 and 2016 editions, not later agency actions; synthesized reference notes, not legal or licensing advice and not a substitute for the source documents. LICENCE: Public Domain (US Government work, 17 U.S.C. § 105).
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。
Reconstructed reference notes on US FAA approval guidance for airborne software and airborne electronic hardware, built from four public-domain sources (FAA Order 8110.49A, AC 20-115D, AC 20-152A, AC 00-69; documents dated 2017-07-21 to 2022-10-07, pinned 2026-10-12). Use for how FAA certification staff plan and conduct software reviews (certification liaison, desk versus on-site review, review planning agreements), how the level of FAA involvement (LOI) is picked and scored with the Appendix A worksheets, how software conformity inspection works (software part and installation conformity, ASE and ASI tasks, Form 8120-10), what AC 20-115D recognizes and how DO-178B processes and tool qualification transition to DO-178C/DO-330 (supplements, FLS, UMS, legacy software changes), and what AC 20-152A adds for airborne electronic hardware (simple versus complex custom devices, robustness and HDL code coverage, tool assessment, previously developed hardware, COTS IP, COTS devices, circuit board assemblies), and what AC 00-69 adds as best practices for change impact analysis, data and control coupling, and design-level error handling (best practices, not guidance and not a means of compliance). SCOPE LIMITS: FAA guidance only, and guidance is not regulation (ACs are acceptable means, not the only means); no RTCA DO-178C or DO-254, EUROCAE ED-12C or ED-80, supplement, or SAE ARP text, which are copyrighted and named only (see the avionics-signpost pack); no AC 00-72 (named, not packed); no DO-178C software-level objective tables; no EASA AMC 20-115D or AMC 20-152A content (use easa-rules); reflects the pinned source dates, not later FAA actions; synthesized reference notes, not legal advice and not a substitute for the source documents. LICENCE: Public Domain (US Government work, 17 U.S.C. 105).
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。
Reconstructed reference notes on EU and UK medical-device software, built from six sources captured 2026-10-13: MDCG 2019-11 rev.1 (June 2025), MDCG 2020-6 (April 2020), MDCG 2020-13 (July 2020), MDCG 2020-7 (April 2020), MDCG 2020-8 (April 2020), and the MHRA software-applications guidance (2023-07-01) with its stand-alone software PDF. Use for SaMD qualification and classification, legacy-device clinical evidence, the clinical evaluation assessment report, the PMCF plan, and the PMCF evaluation report, under EU MDCG guidance or UK MHRA guidance. SCOPE LIMITS: EU MDR and UK MHRA device software only; no IEC 62304, ISO 13485, or ISO 14971 text; no MDR or IVDR regulation body text; MDCG guidance is not legally binding; MHRA guidance is UK-specific; synthesized notes, not legal advice. LICENCE: Per-document: European Commission reuse policy (Decision 2011/833/EU, CC BY 4.0, attribution and indication of changes) for the MDCG documents; Open Government Licence v3.0 for the MHRA guidance; reconstructed notes with attribution; official PDFs not redistributed.
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。
간결한 plan을 사용자와 합의한 뒤, feature(use case) 하나를 RGB(Red→Green→Blue) 사이클로 끝까지 자율 구현하는 오케스트레이터. 문제 정의·기능 분해·완료조건(programmer test) 합의까지는 사용자와 피드백을 주고받고(인터랙티브), 합의 후 구현은 그 feature의 모든 test에 대해 Red 전체→Green 전체→Blue 전체 3-phase로 피드백 없이 끝까지 진행하고, feature(use case) 전체를 phase마다 하나씩 최대 3개 커밋(reviewable-commits Why-body 포함)으로 남긴다(자율). superpowers의 장황한 spec/plan 대신 개발에 맞는 간결 포맷을 쓴다. "기능을 TDD로 끝까지 구현", "plan 합의하고 자율 구현", "feature 단위 RGB", "use case TDD로 짜줘", "/tdd-feature" 요청 시 반드시 사용. 후속 "이어서", "다음 feature", "재개", "다시 진행"도 처리. 단, 단일 test의 step-wise(매 단계 피드백) RGB는 /tdd-rgb, plan 문서만 작성하고 끝낼 때는 /tdd-plan이 적합.
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。
TDD Planning (Spec Anchored) - 얇은 앵커 문서(규칙 + 예제 검산표 + 미확정)를 에이전트 1회 + 사용자 리뷰 1회로 작성. --full로 3단계 풀 플로우(도메인 규칙→예시→테스트 목록). "TDD 계획 문서", "앵커 문서 작성", "테스트 목록 뽑아줘", "plan 세우고 TDD", "/tdd-plan" 요청 시 사용. 단, 요구사항 원천 문서를 먼저 만드는 것은 /tdd-plan-input, plan 합의 후 자율 구현까지는 /tdd-feature가 적합. /tdd-plan [plan-doc-path] [--full]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。
타입·상태별로 반복되는 switch/if-else 분기를 다형성(인터페이스 + 구현 클래스)으로 치환. "switch를 다형성으로", "타입 분기를 클래스로", "strategy 패턴", "/replace-conditional-with-poly" 요청 시 사용. 단, null 분기만이면 /introduce-special-case, 조건식 가독성만이면 /decompose-conditional이 적합. /replace-conditional-with-poly [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。
암묵적 가정(null 아님·범위·상태)을 Assert/Validate로 명시하여 가정 위반 시 즉시 발견. "assertion 추가", "전제 조건 명시", "가정을 코드로", "/introduce-assertion" 요청 시 사용. 단, 반복되는 null 검사를 객체로 대체하는 것은 /introduce-special-case가 적합. /introduce-assertion [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。
Compress review pressure into the right next action instead of more code by default. Classify findings, reject non-liabilities, and choose proof-only vs minimal-fix vs refactor-kernel, preventing one-patch-per-comment churn. Use after a code review — PR comments, reviewer suggestions, or audit findings — and especially when you are about to reflexively patch every comment.
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 a Product Requirements Document (PRD) for a new feature. Use when planning a feature, starting a new project, or when asked to create a PRD. Triggers on: create a prd, write prd for, plan this feature, requirements for, spec 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。
Commit the current changes with quality checks, status review, staged diff inspection, appropriate tests, and a clear commit message. Use when the user says "commit", "c", asks to make a commit, or wants changes saved in git.
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。
Interview the user deeply about a plan, probing technical implementation, UI/UX, risks, tradeoffs, and missing decisions before writing or refining a spec. Use when the user says "interview me" or asks to be questioned about a plan.
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。