「completeness」の検索結果

Builds traceability matrices connecting requirements to design documents to source code implementation, tracking the complete development lifecycle. Use when you need to verify implementation completeness, ensure all requirements are implemented in code, generate compliance documentation, audit requirement coverage, identify orphaned code, or create traceability reports for stakeholders. Supports parsing requirements from Markdown, Word, and PDFs; extracting design from architecture docs and API specs; and scanning source code for implementations. Outputs to Markdown tables, Excel/CSV, and HTML visualizations.

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。

Verify that design documents, code implementations, and tests fully cover all specified requirements. Use this skill when validating requirement traceability, conducting design reviews, assessing implementation completeness, checking test coverage against requirements, performing compliance audits, or identifying missing functionality. Produces coverage reports showing which requirements are satisfied, partially satisfied, or missing.

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 quality check for a completed rebuttal document before submission. Use after Stage 3 document compilation or after Stage 5 final remarks writing to verify completeness, tone, factual accuracy, and structural integrity. Catches common rebuttal errors before they reach reviewers.

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 a Go design spec before implementation begins - dispatch a subagent that checks a design doc for completeness, consistency, and idiomatic Go (simplicity, small consumer-defined interfaces, explicit wrapped errors, context propagation) plus Cobra/Viper conventions where applicable. Use when a user has a Go spec to review, asks "is this spec ready?", or is about to implement from a written design. Distilled from spf13/go-skills and adapted to this repo's conventions.

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。

Think and work like an expert Logician. Use when a task calls for Logician judgment. Reasons from syntax-versus-semantics and object-versus-metalanguage discipline, the ⊢/⊨ distinction, and matching each logic to its intended semantics through natural deduction and sequent calculus (cut-elimination, subformula property), compactness and Löwenheim–Skolem, forcing and diagonalization, and proof assistants (Lean 4/mathlib, Coq, Isabelle/HOL, Agda) with Z3/CVC5/Vampire/Mace4 automation while treating use–mention conflation, second-order misuse of compactness, mis-stated incompleteness hypotheses (ω-consistency vs consistency), and Gödel philosophical overreach as first-class failure modes.

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。

Think and work like an expert Global Health Researcher. Use when a task calls for Global Health Researcher judgment. Reasons from burden, equity, and health-system building blocks through DHS/MICS/DHIS2/GBD triangulation, cluster and stepped-wedge designs, RE-AIM/CFIR implementation science, and CIOMS-fair partnership while treating survey weights, HMIS completeness, and GBD smoothing as first-class failure modes.

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。

Think and work like an expert Exoplanet Scientist. Use when a task calls for Exoplanet Scientist judgment. Reasons from Keplerian motion, transit and RV geometry, and degenerate retrieval spaces through TLS/BLS searches, centroid and odd-even vetting, RadVel and GP activity models, and petitRADTRANS retrievals while treating eclipsing-binary blends, stellar-rotation-mimicking RV signals, and look-elsewhere completeness cliffs as first-class failure modes.

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。

Apply requirement quality principles when generating or validating feature specifications. Enforces feature completeness, scenario structure, AC verifiability, feature independence, and implementation slice quality. Use when writing feature specs, validating existing requirements, or when the user mentions 'validate this spec', 'check this feature', 'requirement quality', 'is this spec complete', or 'requirement-quality'. This skill governs the craft of writing individual feature specifications — not technical design (see design-blueprint), not implementation (see code-forge).

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 contracts for risks, check completeness, and provide actionable recommendations. Use when a user asks to review a contract, check an agreement for red flags, analyze contract terms, find risky clauses, review an NDA, evaluate a service agreement, or audit employment contract terms. Supports employment contracts, NDAs, service agreements, and vendor contracts.

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。

Challenges a recommendation, design, large change, or any artifact submitted for hard review (spec, proposal, policy, plan) across 5 dimensions (consistency, completeness, actionability, alignment, risk), from the standards of a named senior expert in the artifact's domain and ideally from a fresh context or a different model. Searches assuming defects exist and reports only those that survive evidence. Panel mode runs several independent lenses in parallel on a release candidate, verifies every finding against the current head, and routes confirmed ones to file owners. Use before shipping a significant recommendation, design, large branch, or multi-agent release, or when asked to tear something apart, be brutally honest, or poke holes in 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。

Audit whether a paper's baseline comparisons are COMPLETE, FAIR, and SIGNIFICANT: a required recent SOTA baseline is missing while 'best/SOTA' is claimed (HP-MISSING-BASELINE); a baseline is undertuned / given less compute-tuning-data, run at a mismatched config, or the equal-budget ablation-as-baseline is absent (HP-WEAK-BASELINE); 'outperforms' is asserted over overlapping error bars or with no variance/seeds (HP-SIG-OVERLAP); and a cross-row 'improves over baseline by X%' is arithmetically wrong (HP-DELTA-ERROR, cross-row form only). A versioned per-domain baseline profile + a live leaderboard/recency search are assembled by the EXECUTOR as structured facts; a fresh cross-model reviewer (gpt-5.6-sol xhigh, read-only, fresh thread per dimension) PROPOSES findings, each span-anchored to a ledger claim_id; tools/adjudicate_findings.py DECIDES the verdict. Works at L0 (stated comparisons) and deepens at L2 (configs/result files). A completeness question it cannot settle internally becomes needs_external_check, never a guessed missing baseline. Emits baseline-comparison-audit.findings.json; computes NO verdict. Detect-only. Triggers: "baseline audit", "missing baselines", "is the comparison fair", "weak baseline", "baseline 误报", "SOTA earned?".

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。

Improve a README for clarity and completeness. Use when a junior developer needs guidance on documenting setup and usage.

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。

Conduct deep OSINT research on individuals. Build full digital footprint, psychoprofile (MBTI/Big Five), career history, social graph with confidence scores. Recursive self-evaluation until completeness threshold is met. Includes internal intelligence (Telegram history, email, vault contacts) before going external. Use when: "osint", "досье", "research person", "find everything about", "пробей", "разведка", "due diligence", "background check", "digital footprint", "найди всё про", "собери информацию", "кто это", "профиль человека". NOT for: company/product research without a named person, competitive analysis, market research, content generation, or general web scraping tasks.

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。

Audits any SDK documentation site and produces a fully scored, downloadable HTML report. Use this skill whenever a user provides a documentation URL and asks to audit, review, analyse, score, or check the quality of SDK docs. Also trigger for phrases like "audit the SDK docs at X", "check if the docs at X are complete", "review this SDK documentation", "how good are these docs", "run an SDK audit on X", or any time a user pastes a URL alongside words like audit, review, crawl, check, analyse, quality, completeness, or gaps. ALWAYS use this skill — do not attempt the audit without following this structured crawl → analyse → cross-reference → report workflow.

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 a directory of multilingual blog content for completeness, consistency, hreflang correctness, meta-tag parity, and freshness. Builds a translation coverage matrix, flags stale translations, validates hreflang and schema, and emits a prioritized report with runnable fix commands. Use when user says "locale audit", "blog locale-audit", "check translations", "multilingual audit", "translation check", "hreflang check", "Uebersetzungen pruefen".

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。

Audits any developer documentation site across 33 checks in 7 categories and produces a scored report (out of 100) with Pass / Warn / Fail status per check. Use this skill whenever a user provides a docs URL and asks to audit it, review it, score it, check its quality, or evaluate it for AI discoverability, SEO, structure, content, or completeness. Also trigger when the user says "run a docs audit", "audit these docs", "check this documentation", "how good are the docs for X", or pastes a docs URL with any evaluative intent. Always use this skill — do not attempt a freeform docs review without following this structured workflow.

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。

Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict with specific gaps.

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。

Quality review of test files and manual evidence documents. Goes beyond existence checks — evaluates assertion coverage, edge case handling, naming conventions, and evidence completeness. Produces ADEQUATE/INCOMPLETE/MISSING verdict per story. Run before QA sign-off or on demand.

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 game design document for completeness, internal consistency, implementability, and adherence to project design standards. Run this before handing a design document to programmers.

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。

Validates completeness and consistency of the project architecture against all GDDs. Builds a traceability matrix mapping every GDD technical requirement to ADRs, identifies coverage gaps, detects cross-ADR conflicts, verifies engine compatibility consistency across all decisions, and produces a PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL verdict. The architecture equivalent of /design-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。

Generates a comprehensive milestone progress review including feature completeness, quality metrics, risk assessment, and go/no-go recommendation. Use at milestone checkpoints or when evaluating readiness for a milestone deadline.

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, preview, implement, and assess mini-program interfaces against an approved prototype, screenshot, visual reference, design system, or bounded UI request while preserving product semantics and existing accepted behavior. Use when users ask to reproduce a mini-program screen, refine visual hierarchy, adapt layouts across device sizes, handle safe areas or keyboards, inspect touch targets, scrolling, media, or gesture conflicts, compare an implementation with a reference, or prepare a device-verification matrix. Separates proposed visual previews, user approval, source integration, local checks, and real-device evidence; never invents product functionality for visual completeness or claims device validation without device-specific proof.

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 Elixir documentation for completeness, quality, and ExDoc best practices. Use when auditing @moduledoc, @doc, @spec coverage, doctest correctness, and cross-reference usage in .ex files.

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 or formatting an ADR document using the MADR template, applying Definition of Done (E.C.A.D.R.) criteria, or verifying ADR completeness. Triggers on "write the ADR", "format as MADR", "check ADR quality", "mark gaps in ADR". Also triggers when a decision has been extracted and needs to become a document. Does NOT extract decisions from conversations (use adr-decision-extraction) or orchestrate the full extract-confirm-write workflow (use write-adr).

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。