1,348 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
XP-style plan review that identifies gaps, hidden assumptions, and critical misses. Triggers on 'review the plan', 'check the plan', 'audit the plan'. Reviews plans for YAGNI violations, missing feedback loops, and over-engineering.
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。
Run a targeted fresh-eyes blunder pass over code, specs, plans, reviews, closure gates, or skill edits. Use when asked to reread with fresh eyes, find obvious bugs, catch mistakes/oversights/omissions, check for embarrassing misses, or do a second independent pass before closure. Use it as the final falsification/check pass for another workflow, not as a substitute for implementation or verification.
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。
Create a free remote development host on Oracle Cloud (Always Free) end to end — install and authenticate the OCI CLI, provision VCN/subnet/NSG/instance with capacity retries, then apply a hardened Ubuntu 22.04 Ansible stack (Tailscale-only SSH, ufw, fail2ban, mosh, persistent tmux, Caddy tailnet web previews, on-host verification suite) and tear it down again. Use when the user says "free remote dev environment", "Oracle Cloud free tier dev box", "OCI Always Free VPS", "give me a cloud dev machine for free", "provision a dev host on Oracle", or asks to move a Tailscale-only dev host setup to Oracle Cloud. Covers OCI CLI bootstrap, the Tailscale cutover, verification, costs, and teardown.
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。
Load when configuring GitBook documentation sites, authoring GitBook-flavored markdown pages and custom blocks, integrating OpenAPI/Swagger specs, driving GitBook Change Request workflows (create, review, comment, resolve), or building GitBook platform integrations. Do not use for general repository code reviews, general .NET OpenAPI schema generation, or non-GitBook markdown.
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。
Load when orchestrating Multi-Agent Debate (MAD), adversarial code reviews, or pull-request deliberation to enforce Response Anonymization, expert persona assignment, and weighted post-hoc voting.
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 NASA NPR 7150.2D — NASA Software Engineering Requirements. Use for NASA's Agency-wide software-engineering requirements: the software classification scheme (Classes A–F), the Requirements Mapping Matrix and class-driven applicability, tailoring and Technical Authority governance, the SWE-### 'shall' requirements across software management (Ch 3) and the engineering life cycle (Ch 4), the supporting disciplines (configuration management, risk, peer reviews/inspections, measurement, non-conformance — Ch 5), safety-critical and cybersecurity requirements, IV&V applicability, traceability, and the Appendix A definitions. Does not cover detailed software-assurance/safety procedures (see NASA-STD-8739.8), implementation how-to and document content (see NASA-HDBK-2203), the systems-engineering process framework (see NPR 7123.1), or program/project management (see NPR 7120.5).
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 NASA Fault Management Handbook (NASA-HDBK-1002, Draft 2, April 2012). Use for the systems-engineering discipline of designing what a system does when it fails — the fault/failure/anomaly vocabulary, the five FM strategies (two prevention strategies — design-time fault avoidance and operational failure avoidance — plus three tolerance strategies — failure masking, failure recovery, and goal change), the six FM process activities across NASA mission phases Pre-A to E, response-latency-versus-time-to-criticality (TTC) design trades, fault/failure containment regions and FEPPs, the four redundancy approaches, top-down FM requirements development, FM verification vs. validation, the seven dedicated FM milestone reviews (FMCR/FMARR/FMPDR/FMCDR/FMTRR/FMLRR/FMCERR), FM organizational structure, and mined NASA Lessons Learned. Space-mission oriented (flight/ground/operations); spacecraft examples throughout. IMPORTANT: built from an UNAPPROVED DRAFT — several sections (detailed architecture building blocks, the Assessment & Analysis guidance, and Operations & Maintenance) are placeholders in the source and are thin here. Thin on detailed FDIR algorithms, terrestrial/IT fault management, and any approved-standard terminology that may have changed since Draft 2.
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 NASA Systems Engineering Handbook (NASA/SP-2016-6105 Rev 2). Use for NASA's systems-engineering process model — the SE Engine and 17 common technical processes, the program/project life cycle (Pre-Phase A through F), Key Decision Points and technical reviews (MCR/SRR/PDR/CDR/…), stakeholder expectations, technical requirements, design solution, product verification and validation, and crosscutting technical management (planning, risk, configuration, interfaces, data, assessment, decision analysis). Strong for aerospace/spaceflight project SE and lifecycle gating; NASA-specific terminology (KDPs, NPR 7123.1).
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 DoD Systems Engineering Guidebook (OUSD R&E, February 2022). Use for the DoD SE process model — the 16 SE processes (8 technical management + 8 technical) mapped to ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288, the event-driven technical reviews and audits across the Major Capability Acquisition life cycle (ASR, SRR, SFR, PDR, CDR, SVR/FCA, PRR, PCA), the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), risk/issue/opportunity management, TPMs and leading indicators, system-of-systems and digital engineering, and the 24 design considerations (RAM, system safety, HSI, system security engineering, MOSA, supportability, etc.). Acquisition-program oriented: thin on detailed cost estimating, contracting law, and non-DoD or commercial life cycles.
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 DOE Order on Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets (DOE O 413.3 series). Use for Critical Decisions CD-0–CD-4, performance baselines, acquisition strategy and IPTs, cost/schedule/EVMS/PARS controls, risk-informed governance, reviews, and contractor requirements. Built from O 413.3C (2026-08-05), which cancels O 413.3B Chg 7 (2023-06-21); does not replace site-specific procedures, nuclear safety rules detail, or full estimating standards.
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 NASA NPR 7123.1D — Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. Use for the 17 common SE processes (SE Engine), life-cycle reviews and entrance/success criteria, SEMP structure and content, ETA roles and tailoring/customizing rules, Technology Readiness Levels (TRL 1–9), SE work product maturity terminology, contracted project oversight, and MOE/MOP/TPM measurement frameworks. Does not cover NASA programme financial management, human spaceflight medical standards, or software engineering requirements in depth (see NPR 7150.2 for the latter).
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 MIL-HDBK-338B (Electronic Reliability Design Handbook). Use for electronic reliability engineering: R/M/A theory, reliability specification/allocation/prediction, parts management and derating, reliable circuit and fault-tolerant design, environmental and human performance reliability, FMEA/FMECA/FTA/sneak circuit analysis, design reviews and testability, FRACAS, reliability demonstration and growth testing, and systems-level R&M parameters. Covers selected Part 2 design-guidance topics only; skips large annex/part-stress tables. Guidance handbook — not a contractual requirement text. Does not replace MIL-HDBK-217 prediction libraries, service-specific reliability regs, or safety standards (see mil-std-882).
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 DoD M&Q BoK (the Manufacturing and Quality Engineering Body of Knowledge), v3.0 of July 2025, published by OUSD(R&E). Use for the manufacturing-and-quality view of the defense acquisition life cycle: what M&Q engineers do across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework phases (Pre-MDD, Materiel Solution Analysis, Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production and Deployment, Operations and Support); the twelve M&Q threads (A–L) built on the '5 Ms'; manufacturing feasibility and producibility; Manufacturing Readiness Levels and assessments; Key/Critical Characteristics and process capability (Cp/Cpk, SPC); the standards stack (AS6500, AS9100/ISO 9001, AS9103, AS9145); technical reviews (ASR/PDR/CDR/PRR) and milestone gates; DCMA surveillance; industrial base and supply chain; and sustainment (LCSP, IPS, ILA, ISR). Scope is DoD acquisition M&Q practice on the Major Capability Acquisition path — it is a best-practice compilation, not policy, and is thin on detailed shop-floor process engineering, contract law, and the full text of the cited industry standards (which it names but does not reproduce).
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。
Role-based multi-model strategy. The model catalog lives in a local configuration file instead of the skill text -- roles (thinker/decision-maker, long-running worker, draft generator, reviewer/acceptance, escalation), reasoning effort as an independent axis, mandatory review for draft models, provider switching for independent reviews, budgets, delegation flow, and cost/quality of small workers.
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。
General Blender workflow skill for AI agents working with .blend, .fbx, .obj, .glb, glTF, materials, scene inspection, bpy automation, headless Blender batch runs, export/reimport validation, previews, and optional Blender MCP control. Use when a task asks to open, inspect, create, automate, convert, optimize, render, or verify Blender or 3D asset files in a user-agnostic way.
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。
Rollenbasierte Multi-Modell-Strategie. Modellkatalog liegt in einer lokalen Konfigurationsdatei statt im Skill-Text -- Rollen (Denker/Entscheider, Dauer-Worker, Entwurfsgenerator, Reviewer/Abnahme, Eskalation), Reasoning-Effort als eigene Achse, Abnahmepflicht für Entwurfsmodelle, Anbieterwechsel für unabhängige Reviews, Kontingente, Delegationsablauf und Kosten/Qualität kleiner Worker.
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 a RAID log (risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies) line by line and returns a DRAFT review pack: which entries are stale, overdue, duplicated, ownerless, incomplete or misfiled, why, and a proposed update per line as current text against proposed text with the decision the project manager must take. Never re-rates, closes, merges or edits the log. Use when the user asks to "review the RAID log", "clean up the risk log", "health-check the RAID log before the steering meeting", "which risks are stale", "find duplicate risks" or "refresh the issue log". Do not use for setting up a new RAID log or logging a single new risk, issue or decision, use project-status-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。
Reviews the text and structure of a document, slide deck or web page against the accessibility rules the user supplies, or a default set covering heading structure, image alternative text, colour used as the only cue, link text, reading order, tables and language, and returns numbered findings with location, rule, severity and a ready-to-apply fix for the author, plus proposed alt text and a list of checks that need a tool or a person. Use when the user asks to "check this document for accessibility", "review the alt text in this deck", "is this page accessible", "run an accessibility check on these slides", "find accessibility issues before I publish" or "check my headings and link text". Do not use for brand or template compliance of slides, use branded-deck-builder 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。
Reviews one deal's notes and timeline (CRM opportunity record, activity log, emails, meeting notes, forecast entries) for risk signals such as a single contact thread, no identified budget owner, slipped or missing dates, silence after a proposal, an undefined decision process or a competitor named late, and returns a DRAFT risk register: each signal with the quoted evidence and its date, a severity on a stated scale, and one proposed next action with an owner role for the user to decide on. Use when the user asks to "review the risks on this deal", "why is this opportunity stalling", "is this deal single-threaded", "deal health check before the forecast call" or "what should we do next on <opportunity>". Do not use for a whole-account plan, use account-plan-builder instead; for scoring early leads against a rubric use lead-qualification-scorer. 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 a set of knowledge files or a knowledge base listing and returns a draft hygiene table, one row per file: duplication signals with the matching file, staleness signals, conflicts between files on the same topic with both passages quoted, missing or unverified owners, and one proposed action per file (Keep, Update, Merge into, Retire, Assign owner, Confirm with owner) for the owner to decide. Never edits, merges, moves or deletes a file. Use when the user asks to "review our knowledge base for duplicates", "which KB articles are stale", "find conflicting articles", "which articles have no owner" or "run a hygiene check on these files". Do not use for review-date sweeps of a document library with owner reminders, use sharepoint-review-sweeper instead; for writing one article, use knowledge-article-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 one SKILL.md against the format rules and returns a findings table: strict YAML front matter with exactly name and description, name equal to the folder, description as the trigger, the eight-heading skeleton, capability-neutral wording, safety boundaries. Each finding carries severity, rule identifier, location, quoted evidence and replacement text; the verdict READY, REVISE or BLOCKED is an apparent state and the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "review this SKILL.md", "check my skill file before upload", "lint this skill description", "validate the front matter of this skill" or "score this skill folder". Do not use to write an agent's instructions field, use agent-instructions-drafter instead; for injection or leakage exposures use agent-instructions-red-team; for launch tests use agent-evaluation-plan. 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。
Reviews one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Works Council Representative archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, employee-impact risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this as the works council would", "what would the works council say about this rollout", "prepare me for the staff council consultation", "find the employee-impact gaps in this plan" or "pressure-test this deck from the employee representative side". Do not use for people strategy, restructuring or HR policy, use chro-reviewer instead; for whether frontline staff will adopt or work around the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. 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。