「brief」の検索結果

Review someone else's PR through an architectural/strategic lens — does it shift design, raise complexity, or quietly change precedent? Drives a brief reflective discussion with the user, then posts a concise review comment via `gh`. Defers line-level and bug-hunting concerns to AI review bots and the PR author.

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。

德·沙泽尔与伯格的焦点解决短期心理治疗（SFBT）：奇迹提问、例外探索、评定量表、资源激活。

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。

ドゥ・シェーザーとバーグによる解決志向ブリーフセラピー（SFBT）：ミラクル・クエスチョン、例外の探索、スケーリング、リソースの活性化。

Ориентированная на решение краткосрочная терапия по де Шейзеру и Берг: Чудо-вопрос, исследование исключений, шкалирование, активация ресурсов.

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。

Terapia Breve Centrada en Soluciones según de Shazer y Berg: Pregunta del milagro, exploración de excepciones, escalamiento, activación de recursos.

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。

Anti-slop frontend skill for landing pages, portfolios, and redesigns. The agent reads the brief, infers the right design direction, and ships interfaces that do not look templated. Real design systems when applicable, audit-first on redesigns, strict pre-flight 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。

Erzeugt aus einem Bestand offener und gefallener Entscheidungen einen strukturierten ASCII-Abhängigkeitsgraphen (maximal 100 Spalten) für das Terminal. Bewertet Knoten nach fünf festen Kriterien: sinnvoll, empfohlen, usertypisch (Richtung und decision-avatar-Konfidenz getrennt), zusammenpassend und widersprechend; Kanten tragen Beziehungstyp und Belegstatus. Deckt Blocker, Freischaltungen, Reihenfolgen und widersprüchliche Empfehlungen gnadenlos auf. Nutze diesen Skill bei "welche Entscheidungen hängen voneinander ab", "Abhängigkeitsgraph der Entscheidungen", "Entscheidungspfad visualisieren", "Widersprüche zwischen Entscheidungen prüfen", "Reihenfolge der Beschlüsse", /decision-path. NICHT nutzen, um Entscheidungen erst zu inventarisieren -- das macht decision-briefing; NICHT nutzen, um das empfohlene Gesamtkonzept zur Abnahme zu bündeln -- das macht decision-draw; NICHT für kompakte Fünfteiler- Einzelblöcke mit Optionen und Pro/Contra -- das macht decision-shot; NICHT für die Einzelfall-Erwägung mit Frameworks -- das macht decide.

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。

Builds a DRAFT stakeholder map for one project from the charter, organisation chart, RACI, governance terms, steering minutes, meeting notes and messages the user provides: a stakeholder register, interest and influence ratings each with its stated basis, stance as evidenced by a verbatim fragment with source and date, gaps, and a proposed engagement plan per stakeholder, every line traced to a source and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "build the stakeholder map", "who are the stakeholders on this project", "map interest and influence", "where does each stakeholder stand", "draft the stakeholder engagement plan" or "refresh the stakeholder register". Do not use for a customer account's stakeholders, use account-plan-builder instead; for a one-page brief before one meeting, use meeting-prep-onepager; for logging decisions and risks against the project, use project-status-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。

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。

Turns the text of a regulatory change (new regulation, amendment, rule, guidance or standard revision) into a DRAFT impact note: what changed against the prior text where supplied, who is affected as the text scopes it, an obligations table with dates and owners to confirm, and open interpretation questions for legal. States only what the text says; the rest is UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "brief legal on this new regulation", "list what we must do by when under this amendment", "compare the new standard with the version it replaces", "turn this directive into an obligations table" or "what does this rule mean for us". Do not use for assessing existing controls against a requirement set, use controls-gap-pack instead; for gapping a policy against a standard, use policy-gap-review. 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 business need and its constraints into a DRAFT RFP requirements pack: traced functional and non-functional requirements with priorities, mandatory gates, evaluation criteria with weights left to the business owner, and fact-seeking supplier questions. Solution-neutral; never names a supplier or product. Use when the user asks to "write the RFP requirements", "turn this business case into tender requirements", "draft the supplier questionnaire", "structure our RFQ from this brief" or "set up evaluation criteria before we go to market". Do not use for responses already received, use rfp-comparison-pack to compare them or supplier-evaluation-matrix to score them 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。

Builds one DRAFT message house for a product, service, programme or initiative from the source material the user provides: an umbrella statement, two to four pillars and graded proof points under each, with every proof point that lacks a source flagged, a claim sensitivity table, an audience coverage check and open questions. Use when the user asks to "build a message house", "write our messaging framework", "what are the key messages for this launch", "turn this research into messaging pillars" or "test our current messaging against the evidence". Do not use for a campaign one-pager, use campaign-brief-builder instead; to check whether a written document's claims are substantiated, 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。

Builds a DRAFT change-communication plan from a change description: audience map, key messages per audience traced to the description, channels, sequence with dates or day offsets, owners, feedback loop and open questions, plus drafts of the first messages for the sponsor to approve. Use when the user asks to "plan the comms for this change", "who needs to hear about this and when", "draft the announcement sequence", "build a communication plan for the rollout", "write the first message to managers about this change" or "how do we tell people about this". Do not use for a clause-by-clause comparison of a changed HR policy with its previous version, use policy-change-briefing instead; for a new hire's first weeks, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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 blameless incident postmortem (summary, impact, timeline, detection and response, contributing factors as candidates for review, action items) from an incident channel export, ticket notes and any alert or change records, with UNKNOWN for every fact the inputs do not contain. Never assigns blame, names a root cause or re-rates severity. Use when the user asks to "write the postmortem for this incident", "build the incident timeline from the chat export", "draft the post-incident review" or "turn this ticket and channel log into an incident report". Do not use for a knowledge article from the resolved ticket, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis; for data-breach impact and notification questions, use data-incident-impact-brief. 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 set of questions (form exports, helpdesk logs, meeting Q and A, chat threads, a plain list) plus the source documents the user supplies into a DRAFT FAQ grouped by theme: every answer quoted or paraphrased from a named source with a reference, verbatim quotes for dates, figures, eligibility and obligations, UNKNOWN where the sources are silent, a source register with precedence, a conflicts table and a routing list of unanswered questions to owners. Use when the user asks to "build an FAQ from these documents", "answer these questions from the policy", "turn the Q and A into an FAQ page", "group these questions and answer them from the guide" or "what do our documents say about these questions". Do not use for the manager FAQ of a changed HR policy, use policy-change-briefing instead; for checking whether a document's own claims are evidenced, 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。

Builds a DRAFT content calendar for a stated period from the themes, channels, cadence rules, fixed dates and owners the user provides: one dated row per planned item with theme, channel, format, working title, owner, status and source, plus a cadence check with its arithmetic, theme balance, owner load and the slots left open. Use when the user asks to "build the content calendar for Q4", "lay these themes onto dates", "plan a month of posts across our channels", "extend the editorial calendar" or "check this calendar against our cadence". Do not use for deciding what the campaign says or why it runs, use campaign-brief-builder instead; for writing the items themselves, use announcement-drafter or internal-newsletter-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。

Turns one meeting transcript or recap into a DRAFT action-items document (decisions, owned and dated action items with verbatim source quotes, open questions), a task list ready for the user to enter into their task tracker, and one DRAFT follow-up email per action owner, all returned in the chat for the user to store, create or send. Use when the user shares, names or points to a meeting transcript or recap and asks to "pull the action items from this transcript", "who owns what after today's call", "draft follow-up emails to each owner" or "turn this recap into tasks". Do not use for full minutes, use meeting-minutes-writer instead; a brief before a meeting is meeting-prep-onepager. 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。

Sweeps the last 24 hours of email, chat messages and meeting transcripts for commitments in both directions, what the user promised others and what others promised the user, reconciles them against a running commitments ledger (open, done, overdue), lists overdue items first and returns the updated ledger plus a proposed task list as Markdown for the user to save. Use when the user asks to "check my commitments", "what did I promise", "what am I owed", "did anything slip" or "run the commitment sweep". Do not use for a general morning summary of mail, calendar and mentions, use custom-daily-brief 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 one long support ticket thread (helpdesk history, email chain, chat transcript, call notes) into a one-page DRAFT escalation summary: the customer's ask in their own words, account context as stated, a dated history, what was tried and the stated result of each attempt, the current state, and what is needed from whom by when, every line referenced to a message and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "escalate this ticket", "summarise this thread for tier two", "write the hand-over for this case", "what has been tried so far", "brief engineering on this customer issue" or "prepare the escalation note". Do not use for a batch of tickets, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for the review after an outage, use incident-postmortem-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。

Proposes redactions of personal identifiers in pasted text or an attached document (names, contact details, identification and account numbers, dates that identify, quasi-identifiers) and returns a DRAFT redacted copy with consistent placeholder tokens plus a redaction table stating what was replaced, where and why, with a confidence level and a blank reviewer decision per row. Use when the user asks to "redact the names in this document", "de-identify this transcript before we share it", "strip personal data from these notes", "anonymise this report for publication" or "what would need redacting here". Do not use for assessing a planned processing activity, use dpia-draft-pack instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-brief instead. Never declares a document anonymised, safe to release or compliant. 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 project or processing description and returns a DRAFT data protection impact assessment pack: processing description, necessity and proportionality questions, a risk table with blank rating cells, mitigations to consider and open questions. Never rates risk, determines the lawful basis or judges adequacy; the DPO assesses and signs. Works from descriptions, never personal data. Use when the user asks to "start a DPIA for the new monitoring tool", "draft a data protection impact assessment", "scaffold a DPIA from this processing description" or "what would the DPO need for a DPIA on this". Do not use for redacting or de-identifying a document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-brief 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。