1.1万 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use this skill when the user asks about carrier-driver relationships — Independent Contractor (IC / 1099) vs Employee (W-2), Owner-Operator lease agreements, the AB5 California law, the DOL 2024 IC test, lease-purchase programs from the carrier side, settlement statements, deductions, and how to structure a compliant IC arrangement. Cite 49 CFR 376 + 1099 IRS rules.
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 this skill when the user asks about FCRA adverse action procedures — what to do when a background check (MVR, criminal, drug test) returns information that may lead to denying employment or terminating a CDL driver. Covers the 5-business-day pre-adverse-action notice, FCRA Summary of Rights, final adverse action notice, state-specific add-ons (CA, NY, etc.), and how to handle disputes. Cite 15 USC § 1681 (FCRA) and 49 CFR 391.
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 this skill when the user asks about accident registers, DOT-recordable accident definitions, what counts as a "reportable accident" under 49 CFR 390.5 + 390.15, accident register retention, post-accident testing trigger logic, FMCSA accident reporting (no longer required to FMCSA directly for non-fatal accidents), insurance reporting timelines, and what to do after a CMV crash. Cite 49 CFR 390.5 + 390.15.
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 introducing a feature flag system, choosing between release flags / experiment flags / operational flags / kill switches / permission flags, designing percentage rollouts, building kill-switch + circuit-breaker patterns, structuring evaluation contexts (user IDs, plan tier, region), or building flag-cleanup discipline. Triggers: LaunchDarkly / GrowthBook / Unleash / Flagsmith / OpenFeature, percentage ramp, sticky bucketing, kill switch wired to alerting, "we still have flags from 2 years ago", flag debt, OpenFeature provider, evaluation context, default value on provider failure. NOT for A/B test statistical analysis (separate skill), traffic-split routing at the edge, build-time bundler defines, or environment-based config.
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。
Audit whether a "current product focus receipt" (Decision/Now/Why-now/Evidence/Not-now/Cut-suspend/First-visible-proof/ Acceptance-gate/Kill-revisit-trigger/Owner/Review-date) and the work order it gates state a real, testable decision and a real agent launch — not planning-placeholder prose that sounds like an assignment but can't be proven. Use when deciding whether to launch an agent chain against a milestone or a stated "focus," when a work order lacks explicit input/output/owner/proof-gate, or when an acceptance gate would only prove a cached UI state instead of daemon truth. NOT for distinguishing roadmap items from energy-driven sidequests (legible-roadmap-with-sidequests), reviewing a PRD/prototype for product-completeness gaps like cold start or pricing (product-reality-reviewer), or accepting already-finished work against a personal acceptance bar (port-daddy-user-surrogate-pm-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。
Rigorous benchmarking of multi-agent coordination systems: experiment design, statistical analysis, human evaluation protocols, and reproducible reporting. NOT FOR ML model evaluation (use llm-evaluation-harness), A/B testing for web products, survey design, or general data science.
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。
Classify every destructive/gated action an agent body can attempt (git, filesystem, network, shell, github) into block/approve/allow tiers, and audit whether the pre-tool and post-tool governance backing that classification is real: blocked actions proven zero-side-effect by a negative fixture, every denial backed by a receipt and a transcript event, every block-tier denial paired with a safe alternative, and no unmanaged or same-UID body ever marked "contained." Use when building or reviewing Agent Harbor's C5 governance gate (destructive git blocker, approval request/result, denial receipts), gating a new tool surface before it can run destructive commands, or auditing whether an existing "destructive-action blocked" claim actually has evidence behind it. NOT for proving an existing sandbox boundary actually contains an adversary once an action is isolated (use sandboxed-adversarial-test-harness), deciding where in a DAG to place a human review node or designing the approval UX itself (use human-gate-designer), or designing the general work-receipt schema across an entire agent task (use agent-work-receipt-designer).
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 in developer tool documentation as a product. Activate on: docs site, getting started guide, API reference, developer documentation, Docusaurus, Mintlify, Nextra, ReadMe, migration guide, troubleshooting page, docs information architecture, documentation testing, llms.txt. NOT for: marketing copy (use seo-content-blogging), API design itself (use api-architect), general technical writing (use technical-writer).
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。
State-of-the-art data visualization for React/Next.js/TypeScript with Tailwind CSS. Creates compelling, tested, and accessible visualizations following Tufte principles and NYT Graphics standards. Activate on "data viz", "chart", "graph", "visualization", "dashboard", "plot", "Recharts", "Nivo", "D3". NOT for static images, print graphics, or basic HTML tables.
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。
Threat-models protocols where authority, scarce resources, bonds, bounties, escrow, reputation, ordering, adjudication, or settlement create strategic incentives. Use to test attack utility, conservation, collusion, Sybil resistance, oracle capture, griefing, custody, liquidity, and residual risk. NOT for choosing payment or bond amounts without evidence, smart-contract code audit, legal or employment classification, DeFi trading, admitting workers, or settling claims.
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。
Design modern, intuitive DAG/workflow visual editors that feel like LEGO, not LabView NOT for runtime DAG admission, graph execution, or claiming usability without user 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。
Treat tokens as a coding swarm's cost-of-goods-sold and legibility engine while accounting for finite subscription allowance when per-call price is unknown. Covers provider windows, remaining-usage evidence, burn forecasts, preemptive checkpoint/model switching, per-agent budgets, compaction, shared digests, context degradation, and spend metering. Activate on: "token budget", "context budget", "compaction strategy", "briefing as compression", "context rot", "summarization collapse", "COGS for agents", "subscription usage remaining", "five-hour or weekly limit", "burn forecast", "model switch before limit", or "/context-economics-for-agent-swarms". NOT for: memory architecture (use always-on-agent-architecture), single-prompt wording (use prompt-engineer), mechanism-design proofs (use nisan-et-al-2007-algorithmic-game-theory), physical containment (use sandboxed-adversarial-test-harness), or production rebodiment and fencing (use agent-resurrection-and-body-continuity).
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-level idiomatic Rust API design — the patterns that make illegal states unrepresentable and abstractions zero-cost. Type-state programming (PhantomData state machines), newtype + sealed + extension traits, typestate builders, RAII guards & Drop ordering, the interior-mutability decision tree (Cell/RefCell/Mutex/RwLock/Atomic/OnceLock), enum-driven state machines, error architecture (thiserror vs anyhow), dyn vs generic dispatch & object safety, the impl Trait / GAT / RPITIT toolbox, and Deref-for-smart-pointers (and its abuse). Use when designing a Rust library's public API, encoding invariants in the type system, choosing a dispatch or error strategy, or reviewing Rust for idiom. NOT for borrow-checker firefighting / toolchain / test-runner workflow (use rust-development-workflow), NOT for pd-console GPUI rendering/layout/panes (use gpui-rust-console), NOT for app packaging/notarization (use rust-app-distribution).
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 WCAG 2.2 AA/AAA compliance with automated testing, keyboard navigation, screen reader support, and focus management. Activate on: accessibility audit, WCAG compliance, keyboard navigation, screen reader, aria attributes, axe-core, focus trap. NOT for: design-level accessibility review (use design-accessibility-auditor), color contrast only (use css-in-js-architect).
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。
Author a pull request an AI coding agent can actually get merged: a scoped, coherent diff; a Summary and Test Plan backed by real evidence; correct triage of required-and-blocking CI gates versus external/advisory checks (e.g. a Cloudflare Pages preview build); draft-while-WIP discipline; named fixup commits for real review findings; and a clean landing through a merge queue without force-pushing or bypassing branch protection. Use when opening, updating, triaging red CI on, or landing an agent-authored GitHub PR. NOT for this repo's internal release ceremony, actor embodiments, or contributor mirror-sync mechanics (use port-daddy-internal-dev), tracking backlog/issue lifecycle across a board (use agent-issue-tracker-workflow), or deciding what to build next / sequencing a roadmap (use legible-roadmap-with-sidequests).
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。
Design and audit a pricing function for variable-cost agent labor. Choose among per-seat, metered, credits, hybrid, and outcome pricing; name buyer value and cost metrics separately; calculate a reproducible cost floor; require pre-commitment guardrails; and stress-test declared personas. Use for offline pricing-design evidence, not billing implementation or runtime control. NOT for production billing, payment collection, or runtime spend enforcement.
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。
Safety-case design for always-on agents with episodic memory. Covers data hygiene, privacy and security risk surfaces, cost controls, scope, user dependency concerns, retention, incident containment, and responsible deployment evidence. It identifies hazards and asks for named controls, tests, owners, and residual uncertainty; it does not provide legal, clinical, youth-safety, or jurisdictional determinations. Activate on: "agent safety", "always-on agent privacy", "agent cost control", "persistent agent risks", "AI companion safety", "agent data hygiene", "runaway agent costs", "parasocial AI risk", "/always-on-agent-safety". NOT for: architecture design (use always-on-agent-architecture), input design (use always-on-agent-inputs), application brainstorming (use always-on-agent-applications), healthcare compliance specifically (use hipaa-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。
Analyze a Coval accent testing report from runs across different speaker accents. Use when a user provides a Coval report URL, report export, run IDs, screenshots, or metric summary and wants evidence-backed next steps such as prompt changes, STT/confirmation adjustments, accent-robust routing, or expanded accent coverage.
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 and configure a Coval metric for a concrete product criterion, choosing transcript, audio, trace or deterministic evidence and testing the result. Use for metric creation or scoring design, not for final human calibration.
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。
Execute a bounded Coval evaluation on explicit test cases, then audit conversation, recording and metric evidence. Use when the user requests a run; does not automatically rerun, tune an agent or schedule evaluations.
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。
Delegate a read-only Coval evaluation, simulation, monitoring, product-how-to, or troubleshooting subtask to Sofia through the official Coval MCP consult_sofia tool. Use when the user needs Coval-specific FDE judgment, analysis of organization data, metric or test-set recommendations, or a diagnosis grounded in Coval runs and conversations.
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 a Coval audio-quality testing report from runs across different voice, speaking-style, volume, interruption, and background-noise scenarios. Use when a user provides a Coval report URL, report export, run IDs, screenshots, or metric summary and wants evidence-backed next steps such as prompt changes, tool handling fixes, STT/TTS adjustments, trace setup, or expanded audio-scenario coverage.
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。
Validate one Coval judge against independent human labels, with grouped development/test separation, class-specific errors and uncertainty. Use for trust claims or calibration; without real labels, prepare review rather than inventing ground truth.
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。
Migrate configuration from Bluejay voice AI testing platform to Coval. Use when customer says "migrate from bluejay", "bluejay migration", "import bluejay config", or needs to transfer agents, simulations, metrics, and schedules from Bluejay to Coval.
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。