1,334 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Design and implement unit, conformance, integration, timing, boot, trace, video, audio, and regression tests for EMULATORS processors, chips, peripherals, and complete machines. Use when creating a verification strategy for a new emulator, converting hardware documentation into tests, adding diagnostic programs or golden artifacts, measuring behavioral coverage, or proving that components interact correctly.
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 the weekly "🧹 Housekeeping" digest — a render-only report of repo drift that needs a human eye (stale unmerged branches, mislabeled issues, stuck in-progress tickets, epics ready to close, idle PRs, label-coverage gaps). Reports only, never mutates. Use when asked for a "housekeeping report", "repo drift", "what's stale", or to run the weekly sweep by hand.
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 actually run every kind of test in nuxt-crouton (unit/e2e/typecheck/lint, verified commands) plus the HONEST coverage picture — which packages have real tests vs zero, the dormant skipped/todo cases behind three mocking walls, and what CI truly gates vs what CLAUDE.md claims. Use when asked "how do I run the tests", "is X covered by tests", "what does CI actually check", "why is this suite skipped", "where do I add a test", or before trusting a green build as evidence that something works.
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 a test that can fail. Use whenever adding a test, when a suite is being created for a project that has none, when asked to raise coverage, or before claiming a behaviour is covered. Covers the oracle problem, when to choose the integration suite over the unit one, and how to prove the test is not tautological.
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。
Deploy cloud-native deception across AWS, Azure, and GCP using decoy (honey) resources whose only purpose is to generate a high-fidelity alert the instant an attacker touches them: canary IAM access keys, permission-less decoy users/roles/service principals, honey object-storage buckets, and decoy secrets in Secrets Manager / Key Vault / Secret Manager. Wires detection through CloudTrail + EventBridge, Azure Sentinel honeytoken watchlists + Defender, and GCP Cloud Audit Logs, so any use of a decoy is routed to the SOC with near-zero false positives. Use when protecting cloud accounts and data stores, when an org has only on-prem honeypots and needs cloud coverage, when seeding fake AWS keys to catch credential theft and code-leak exposure, or when detecting cloud reconnaissance and lateral movement. Keywords: cloud deception, canary token AWS, honey S3 bucket, decoy IAM credentials, CloudTrail alert, GuardDuty, Sentinel honeytoken, decoy secret, honey service account, cloud honeypot, breach detection.
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。
Deploys and configures CrowdStrike Falcon EDR agents across enterprise endpoints to enable real-time threat detection, behavioral analysis, and automated response. Use when onboarding endpoints to EDR coverage, configuring detection policies, or integrating Falcon telemetry with SIEM platforms. Activates for requests involving CrowdStrike deployment, Falcon sensor installation, EDR policy configuration, or endpoint detection and response.
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 SOC performance metrics and KPI tracking dashboards measuring Mean Time to Detect (MTTD), Mean Time to Respond (MTTR), alert quality ratios, analyst productivity, and detection coverage using SIEM data. Use when SOC leadership needs operational visibility, continuous improvement tracking, or executive-level reporting on security operations effectiveness.
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。
Structured clarification workflow for underspecified requirements. Use before planning to resolve ambiguities through coverage-based questioning. Records answers in spec clarifications section.
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。
Summarise the unit and e2e tests a branch/PR adds, run only those, and produce a paste-ready report (e.g. for a Linear card). Use when asked to 'summarise added tests', 'run the new tests', 'what tests did this PR add', or to prove a card's test 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。
Use when writing unit/integration tests for Vite projects - provides Vitest configuration, test APIs, mocking patterns, and coverage setup
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。
Review product designs before engineering handoff or release for flow and state coverage, business-rule alignment, implementation clarity, accessibility, responsiveness, analytics, and testability.
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。
This skill should be used when developing code using Test-Driven Development (TDD) methodology. Use this skill when the user wants to write tests first before implementation, needs guidance on the red-green-refactor cycle, or explicitly requests TDD-style development. Triggers include requests like "develop this feature using TDD", "write tests first", "help me with test-driven development", or "implement this following TDD practices". The skill guides through writing failing tests, implementing minimal code to pass, and refactoring while maintaining test 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。
Compare your data to a partner's data in the marketplace. Given a dataset you already own with person/edge data, this skill walks you through picking a partner data source to match against, choosing which identifier types to match on, optionally selecting which enrichment attributes to attach, and then submits the report — returning overlap, match counts, and demographic coverage. Use when: "how does my data compare to your marketplace", "compare my data to [partner]", "how much overlap do I have with [supplier]", "run a match report", "match my customers against 3P data", "see what enrichment is available for my dataset", or any open-ended question about marketplace overlap. (narrative-identity)
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 Production Code Refactoring Process. Triggers on 'tidy up', 'tidy this', 'clean up code'. Use for refactoring production code with test 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。
Refactor test files to improve behavioral coverage, clarity, structure, assertions, fixture setup, mocking strategy, and remove implementation-detail or low-value tests. Use when asked to clean up, declutter, consolidate, or improve tests.
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 implementing a new function, adding a feature, fixing a bug, refactoring with test coverage, or writing a new test. Enforces strict outside-in red-green-refactor TDD with one-failure-per-turn discipline, predict-the-failure-before-every-run checks, hardcode-first minimum changes, triangulation, and property-based testing for large input spaces. Triggers on explicit TDD requests and on any task phrased as "implement", "add", "write a function", "build a feature", or "fix a bug" in a test-capable codebase. Reports red/green validation evidence.
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 adding a test to an existing codebase for behavior that is already implemented. Ensures the test is meaningful by mutation-verifying it — breaking the production code to confirm the test fails for the expected reason. Triggers when the user says "add a test for existing behavior", "backfill test coverage", "the test passes on first run", or any scenario where a test is written without a corresponding new production 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。
Use when modifying, removing, or refactoring code that lacks test coverage. Emphasizes the danger of untested changes and the RGR workflow to add characterization tests before modifications.
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。
Build or review an external integration QA lab with official surface snapshots, coverage matrices, fixtures, opt-in live lanes, and safe credential handling.
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 completed-spec fixture — a seeded intent graph plus a believable four-phase interview transcript — for a brunch feature, so it can feed any downstream tooling that consumes a completed spec or dogfood the UI. Use when you need a real completed specification in .brunch/brunch.db for testing or demo: pick a feature from memory/SPEC.md (or a free description), choose a stress profile (coverage|clean), and produce a registered scenario seed + an interview-questions doc that match exactly.
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 verification strategy: diagnose observability, select oracle families, map to loop tiers, surface blind spots. Use after ln-plan when frontier items or scoped slices need oracle design — especially for LLM, visual, or compositional work — or when verification coverage has drifted.
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。
Knowledge base from the Expanded Guidance for NASA Systems Engineering (NASA/SP-2016-6105-SUPPL, Volume 1, March 2016) — the practitioner-depth supplement to the NASA SE Handbook. Use for the load-bearing mechanics the handbook compresses: the SE Engine's per-phase cadence and the iterative-vs-recursive distinction, the AS9100 crosswalk, life-cycle tailoring vs. customization and the Compliance Matrix, the recursive system-design consistency loop (ConOps vs. Operations Concept, requirement flow/type/ownership, successive refinement), product realization (verify/qualify/accept/certify cardinality, protoflight, 'test the way we fly' coverage, two-form transition), and the crosscutting technical-management procedures (six-step scheduling, cost-estimating method selection, JCL, interface document family, RIDM/CRM, CM baselines, EVM arithmetic, MOE/MOP/KPP/TPM, the three required leading indicators, and the decision-analysis method catalog). This is the DEPTH layer — it deliberately does NOT restate the base definitions; pair it with the nasa-se-handbook pack. Scope: NASA space-flight SE practice (Vol 1 Practices); thin on the Vol 2 process-appendix detail, on non-NASA/commercial life cycles, and on software-engineering methodology.
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 a DRAFT quiz from the training content the user supplies (slide deck, manual, e-learning script, session transcript, procedure): numbered questions with the correct answer, distractors drawn from the content itself, an explanation quoting the source passage with its location, a difficulty tag (Recall, Apply, Analyse) with its basis, and a coverage table showing which sections and objectives each question tests and which are left uncovered. Use when the user asks to "build a quiz from this deck", "write knowledge check questions for this module", "create an assessment from this training", "test understanding of this procedure" or "which sections does this quiz cover". Do not use for a reader-facing question and answer page built from documents, use faq-builder instead; for writing the procedure itself from notes or a walkthrough, use sop-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。
Reviews the instructions text and skills of a declarative agent, with its stated capabilities, knowledge sources and audience, for prompt-injection exposure, data-leakage paths, over-broad permissions and missing refusals, and returns an attack-surface map, a findings table with severity, quoted evidence and attack path, one pasteable fix per finding, a probe pack the owner can run and a refusal-coverage table. Use when the user asks to "red-team this agent", "check these instructions for prompt injection", "could this agent leak data", "review the permissions on my agent" or "what should this agent refuse". Do not use for checking a SKILL.md against the format rules, use skill-file-reviewer instead; do not use for designing the launch test set, use agent-evaluation-plan 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。