「commit」の検索結果

How to handle `GRIDA-SEC-<id>` security boundaries in the Grida repo. Triggers when you encounter a `GRIDA-SEC` tag in source/docs, when modifying files under any tagged path, or when adding a new prevented- vulnerability record. Each `GRIDA-SEC-<id>` identifies a structural trust boundary documented in `/SECURITY.md`. This skill explains the contract, mandates a security review before committing changes to any tagged file, and shows how to register a new id. Use whenever "GRIDA-SEC" appears in context.

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 think about names in the Grida repo — not conventions, but what a name commits you to, reveals about the system, and costs to change. The central discipline is that a strict, honest name refuses to grow, and that refusal drives the repo's shape (flat modules, small agnostic packages, suffix siblings). Use when planning a new package, crate, module, directory, route group, or test corpus — the name comes first.

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 writing prose humans will read—documentation, commit messages, error messages, explanations, reports, or UI text. Applies Strunk's timeless rules for clearer, stronger, more professional writing.

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。

Linux kernel exploitation playbook. Use when exploiting kernel vulnerabilities (UAF, OOB, race condition, type confusion) for privilege escalation via commit_creds, modprobe_path overwrite, or kernel ROP chains in CTF and real-world scenarios.

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。

Talk to customers without leading them using Mom Test rules: discuss their life not your idea, ask about specifics in the past, and talk less. Use when the user mentions "customer interviews", "validate my idea", "users say they want it but dont buy", "leading questions", "The Mom Test", "customer feedback bias", or "interview script". Also trigger when preparing user-research questions, interpreting ambiguous feedback, or designing customer-discovery that avoids false positives. Covers commitment and advancement, avoiding compliments, and extracting signal from noise. For product-market fit, see jobs-to-be-done. For rapid prototype testing, see design-sprint.

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 coding task to Muse Code (`muse`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Muse — phrasings like "have Muse do X", "delegate this to Muse", "run it through Muse", or "use Muse to implement/fix/refactor" — or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through Muse while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. It applies only when the user wants that separate `muse exec` implementer run: if you are Muse yourself and the user simply asks you to write the code, do it directly. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline.

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 coding task to the OpenAI Codex CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Codex — phrasings like "have Codex do X", "delegate this to Codex", "run it through Codex", or "use Codex to implement/fix/refactor" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Codex while staying the reviewer. Prefer it over a one-shot Codex forwarder (such as the codex-rescue agent) when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

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 coding task to the OpenCode CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to OpenCode — phrasings like "have OpenCode do X", "delegate this to OpenCode", "run it through OpenCode", or "use OpenCode to implement/fix/refactor" — or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through OpenCode while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

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 coding task to the Grok Build CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Grok — phrasings like "have Grok do X", "delegate this to Grok", "run it through Grok", "use Grok Build to implement/fix/refactor", or "have grok CLI do this" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Grok while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

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。

End-to-end orchestrated workflow that runs a task the way Fable ran sessions - parallel evidence subagents, one committed plan, surgical execution with an intent gate, adversarial verification agents, honest outcome-first report. Use for non-trivial multi-step tasks when the user says "/fable-loop", "run the fable loop", or "do this the way Fable would". For the rules alone without orchestration, use fable-method; for large multi-phase projects, prefer the GSD workflow and use this inside phases.

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 hands over a dsh plugin repository (or a real migration commit / version corridor) and wants its upgrade experience extracted into one auto-graded Harbor benchmark exam task — produce tasks/<id>/ (fixture + instruction.md + task.toml + judge.mjs + solution) that harbor run can grade 0–1 and that folds into the dsh-plugin-upgrade-skill benchmark suite; also applies to turning existing version cards (references/v*.md) into executable exam tasks. Not for writing upgrade cards; not for running the benchmark.

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 a workshop attendee through committing their starter-agent decomposition and opening a PR with their solution + workshop feedback. Invoke when the user says "submit", "I'm done", "open a PR", or asks how to share their solution.

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。

End-to-end methodology for reproducing AND patching publicly disclosed, already-fixed vulnerabilities: sourcing the advisory and the fix commit, reading the patch diff, rebuilding a pinned offline lab, building a vulnerable-vs-patched contrast harness with proper controls, minimizing the trigger, designing and validating the fix, and writing it up as a blog post or whitepaper. Use this skill whenever the user wants to reproduce, demonstrate, understand, teach, or write about a known vulnerability or security incident: "reproduce this CVE", "build a repro for", "how did EchoLeak / Log4Shell / the postmark-mcp package actually work", "show me how this exploit worked", "write a blog post about this vulnerability", "set up a lab for CVE-XXXX", "pull the NVD/CVE/OSV details", or "make a PoC I can publish". Use it just as eagerly for the patching half: "how should this be fixed", "is this patch correct", "what would have caught this", "review this security fix", "write a regression test for this CVE", "how do I backport this", or "what's the right fix for this bug class" - even when the user never says the word "reproduce". Reach for it on vague asks like "help me understand this security advisory", "I want to write about this incident", or "can we test whether we were vulnerable" when a disclosed vulnerability is in play. This skill only handles ALREADY-PATCHED, publicly disclosed issues and refuses zero-day discovery, live targets, and weaponization.

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 and update Pilot Shell upstream dependencies in installer/upstreams.yaml. Checks npm, PyPI, brew, and curl-pipe entries for newer stable versions, known security advisories, and sha256 drift. Verifies each update installs successfully before committing. Use when: "check upstreams", "update dependencies", "audit upstreams.yaml", "are our dependencies up to date", "supply chain check".

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。

Verifies that work is actually complete before it is claimed to be — running the checks, reading the output, and confirming the original request was satisfied rather than approximated. Use this before saying something is done, fixed, or passing; before committing or opening a pull request; and whenever a claim of success has not been backed by command output.

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。

Explores the problem and the range of possible approaches before any code is written — clarifying what is actually being asked, surfacing options with their tradeoffs, and converging on one. Use this at the start of any feature, component, or behavior change, when a request is ambiguous, when the first idea is the only idea on the table, or when a design decision needs pressure-testing before commitment.

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。

Owns architecture, engineering delivery, infrastructure, data platform, and internal systems. Use this for build-versus-buy calls, technology selection, architectural direction, engineering capacity and delivery risk, technical debt tradeoffs, platform and tooling decisions, or when a technical choice has business consequences that need stating in business terms. Also use to judge whether a technical plan is sound before it is committed to.

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。

Owns legal, contracts, intellectual property, regulatory compliance, privacy, security governance, enterprise risk, and audit readiness. Use this to review a contract or commitment, assess regulatory or privacy exposure, evaluate an IP or licensing question, judge the risk in a business decision, prepare for an audit or certification, or when a plan may create obligations the business cannot meet. Also use to decide whether a risk should be accepted, mitigated, or refused.

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。

Designs a coordinated multi-channel campaign or product launch around one story — objective, message, channel sequencing, timeline, assets, and the checklist that gets it out the door. Use this to plan a launch or campaign, sequence a go-to-market push, pressure-test a campaign before committing budget, or turn a product change into a coordinated set of activity. For ongoing channel programs rather than a bounded push, use `marketing-planning`.

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 the marketing plan of record — objectives, channel mix, budget allocation, sequencing, and the measurement that says whether it worked. Use this for annual or quarterly planning, when budget must be allocated or defended, when marketing activity feels busy but undirected, or when a plan needs pressure-testing before commitment.

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。

Decides what content to make and why — topic territory, format mix, cadence, and how content connects to a business outcome rather than to traffic. Use this to plan a content program, choose topics, build an editorial calendar, decide which formats and platforms to commit to, or diagnose why content is producing audience but not results.

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。

Plans under genuine uncertainty — building scenarios, identifying which assumptions are load-bearing, setting early-warning indicators, and stress-testing a plan against futures rather than forecasting one. Use this when a decision depends on something unknowable, when a plan assumes conditions that may not hold, before a large irreversible commitment, or when a market, regulatory, or technology shift could invalidate the strategy.

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。

Sets direction, allocates capital and attention, and makes the calls no one else can make. Use this when a decision spans more than one function, when priorities conflict and something must be cut, when a plan needs pressure-testing before commitment, or when the question is what the organization should do rather than how to do it. Also use to route a request to the right executive when it is unclear who owns 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。

Layered technical-writing standard: Diátaxis structure, Google developer style sentences, STE instruction rules, Global English syntax. Use for /technical-writing or when writing or reviewing docs, RFCs, readmes, PR descriptions, or commit messages.

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。