1.4万 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.
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 only when the user explicitly asks for TDD, a failing test, or a regression test, OR when the bug has an obvious cheap local test target. Skip when the test path is unclear, expensive, integration-heavy, or not requested.
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。
Periodic pass that keeps a project's verification skill and feature map honest: parallel source readers per feature, one live session driving every feature, at most one PR of proven corrections. Use for /maintain-verification-skill or "audit the verify skill".
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 relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design. Use when the user says "grill me", "grill mich", "grill mich zu diesem Plan", or explicitly invokes /grill-me. Does NOT fire on generic "review this", "poke holes", "stress-test", "devil's advocate" or "critique" phrasing -- for reviewing an already-written artifact (code, PR, paper) use code-review, 3agenten-review, 7phasen-review or caveman-review instead; grill-me interrogates a still-open plan or idea before it is built.
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。
Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrase -- including German ones such as "grill mich", "grill mich zu diesem Plan" or "zerpflück meinen Plan im Grill-Modus". Entry point for the /grill-me command; can also be invoked directly.
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。
Parallel geführte Sprachfassungen eines Dokuments (Paper DE/EN, README + README_de, SKILL.md + SKILL.en.md, Website-Texte) synchron halten: fehlende Fassung nachziehen, Abschnitts-Parallelität prüfen, Divergenzen beheben — mit klarer Leitsprache-Regel und kontrolliertem Rücktransfer, wenn die Nebenfassung etwas besser löst. Nutze diesen Skill bei „sind DE und EN synchron?", „zieh die englische/deutsche Version nach", „Übersetzung ist veraltet", bei zweisprachigen Papers/READMEs/Skills, oder als periodischen Check über einen Dokumentbestand. Enthält auch das Expansions-Audit: bewerten, ob ein Projekt/Dokument WEITERE Sprachen verdient (i18n-Eignung nach Zielgruppe, technische Vorbereitung, kein blindes Massenübersetzen).
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。
Teststrategie-Berater für Softwareprojekte — wählt die richtigen Teststufen (Unit/Integration/System/Abnahme), Testarten (funktional, nicht-funktional, änderungsbezogen) und Testentwurfsverfahren (Äquivalenzklassen, Grenzwerte, Entscheidungstabellen, explorativ) für die jeweilige Situation und SDLC-/CI-Phase, inkl. Testpyramide, CI/CD-Gates, Shift-Left und Best Practices. Nutze diesen Skill IMMER, wenn Tests geschrieben, geplant, priorisiert oder bewertet werden sollen — bei "schreibe Tests", "Teststrategie", "Testplan", "Testkonzept", "was/wie soll ich testen", "welche Tests fehlen", "Testabdeckung verbessern", "QA aufsetzen", Fragen zu Regression/Smoke/Sanity/Last/Stress/Security-Tests oder beim Einrichten einer Test-Pipeline — auch wenn "Test" nur beiläufig fällt. Abgrenzung — für die TDD-Schleife selbst superpowers:test-driven-development, für Bug-Diagnose bugfix-protocol, für systematische Bug-Suche bugsweep nutzen.
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。
8-phase development cycle: Feature requests, current state, functional planning, frontend, backend planning, backend code, tests, use cases. Iterative framework for systematic software development.
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。
Systematic 6-phase debugging protocol. Structured approach to bugs with quick checks, isolated testing, 20-minute rule, and bug report 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。
Prüfungsvorbereitung, Selbsttests, Probeklausuren und systematische Fehleranalyse.
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。
Standard-Gerüst für rotierende Pipeline-Checks: Pro Lauf genau ein Ziel aus einer Menge (Projekte, Ordner, Repos) wählen — bevorzugt das am längsten ungeprüfte —, den Check durchführen, Ergebnis in einer Check-Registry und einem Verlaufslog festhalten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein wiederkehrender Check über viele Projekte verteilt werden soll („prüfe regelmäßig alle X auf Y"), wenn eine Automatisierung Doppelprüfungen vermeiden muss, wenn eine Check-Registry/CHECKS-LOG-Struktur angelegt oder benutzt wird, oder wenn eine periodische Qualitätsrunde (Quellencheck, Style-Check, Health-Check, Audit) über eine Pipeline fair verteilt werden soll.
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。
Interaktives Reißverschluss-Audit-Verfahren für eine Serie von Apps/Prüfobjekten: der User testet live und gibt kurzes Feedback im Chat, der Agent startet dabei bereits das nächste Objekt UND wertet parallel das Feedback des vorigen aus (strukturiert erfassen, Reparaturaufträge sofort an Worker delegieren) — statt sequenziell zu warten. Nutze diesen Skill bei "human-loop-audit", "lass uns die Apps im Reißverschluss durchtesten", "ich teste, du wertest aus und reparierst", oder wenn eine Reihe von GUIs/Produkten gemeinsam mit dem Nutzer durchgetestet werden soll und Befunde sofort in Reparaturen münden sollen. Abschluss ist eine strukturierte Befundliste je Objekt (Funktioniert/Defekt/Wunsch) plus die Liste der bereits gestarteten Reparaturen.
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。
Produces a draft controls and gap pack from a requirement, regulation, standard or policy and the organisation's control descriptions: obligations broken out of the source text, the controls that appear to address each, apparent coverage, gaps, questions for control owners and actions to assess. Never concludes compliance or that a control is effective; owners and audit assess. Use when the user asks to "map this regulation to our controls", "run a controls gap analysis", "break this standard into obligations" or "where is our control coverage thin". Do not use for comparing a policy document against a standard, use policy-gap-review instead; to draft evidence requests from the mapped controls, use control-evidence-request-pack. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Reads one export transaction, order or shipment description and returns a DRAFT export review pack: parties to screen with a screening checklist, an item classification worksheet, a red-flag review, licence-determination questions and open items. Use when the user asks to "prepare the export review for this order", "pre-check this shipment for export control", "who do we need to screen on this deal", "build the classification worksheet for this item" or "assemble the trade-compliance file for this technology transfer". Do not use for vendor security or due-diligence screening of a supplier's questionnaire answers; use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead. Never classifies, screens, clears, decides licence need or releases a shipment; trade compliance does. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Pre-fills a customer's or prospect's security or third-party risk questionnaire from the organisation's own answer sources (prior questionnaires, answer library, policies), returning one row per question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted, Missing or Routed, its source, date, scope match and owner, plus the Missing list by owner. Never invents an answer, certification or control and never submits. Use when the user asks to "pre-fill this security questionnaire", "take a first pass at the customer's due diligence form", "answer this vendor assessment from our previous responses", "populate the third-party risk questionnaire" or "which questions can we reuse answers for". Do not use for screening a vendor's own answers, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for RFP or tender answers use rfp-response-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-drafter instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Compares one policy against one requirement set (standard, regulation, contract schedule or customer requirement) clause by clause and returns a draft gap review: each requirement element, the policy clause that appears to address it, an apparent match state, and every gap as a question with the clause reference on both sides. Never concludes that the policy complies; the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "gap our policy against the standard", "map this policy to the regulation clause by clause", "check the security policy against the customer's contract schedule", "compare our policy with the new edition" or "where does our policy fall short of the requirements". Do not use for mapping a requirement to the operating controls that implement it, use controls-gap-pack instead; for what a regulatory change means for the organisation, use regulatory-change-impact-note. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Drafts a nonconformance report from inspection notes, test results and the governing specification or procedure: what was observed, where, the evidence with references, the requirement cited quoted verbatim with the departure from it, and containment proposals for the quality lead to decide. Never classifies severity, dispositions the item, names a root cause or closes the report. Use when the user asks to "write up this nonconformance", "draft an NCR from my inspection notes", "formalise this deviation" or "turn this snag into a defect report". Do not use for tracking the actions an NCR raises, use corrective-action-tracker instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Reads a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, use corrective-action-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Prepares a DRAFT internal audit pack from the audit plan: scope as stated, criteria with clauses quoted from the documents provided, document requests per auditee with due dates, open interview questions per process and role, previous findings to follow up and a readiness checklist. Never pre-judges conformity, writes findings or selects the sample; the lead auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the internal audit", "build the audit pack from this plan", "draft the document requests and interview questions" or "get us ready for the supplier audit". Do not use for evidence requests built from a control list, use control-evidence-request-pack instead; to chase actions from earlier audits, use corrective-action-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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 an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Prepares a DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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 corrective and preventive actions from NCRs, audit reports, action forms, minutes or a tracker into one DRAFT tracker: action as stated, source, owner, due date, evidence expected and status, with flags for overdue, unowned, undated, stale and closed-without-evidence items and one question per flag. Never closes, verifies, reassigns or re-dates an action. Use when the user asks to "build the CAPA tracker", "update the corrective action log from these audit reports", "which actions are overdue or have no owner" or "draft the chase notes for open actions". Do not use for writing up the nonconformity itself, use nonconformance-report-drafter instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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 a control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, use claims-evidence-map. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。