「technical」の検索結果

วิเคราะห์หุ้น technical, risk management, position sizing, news impact — SET + US stocks (ไม่ใช่คำแนะนำลงทุน)

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。

Autonomous technical lead. Takes commander's intent and drives a project to completion through an OODA loop over implementation, refactoring, review, and bug-hunting skills. Has broad authority — creates tickets, commits, invokes any skill — and only escalates via andon cord for irreversible actions, public releases, or genuinely blocking decisions. User acts as product owner; skill acts as tech lead.

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。

Prospective failure imagination for a plan, decision, or running system. Operates in two modes — **plan mode** (a plan has not yet been committed to; imagine its catastrophic failure broadly) and **scenario mode** (a specific catastrophic scenario is posed against an existing system; investigate causes against the actual code and architecture). Spawns parallel pre-mortemers in isolation across three categories of lens: standard failure classes (technical, operational, estimation, scope, adoption, dependency, team, incentive, detection, reversibility, adversarial), 0-3 ad-hoc target-specific lenses the orchestrator names when warranted, and a first-principles lens that always runs to catch what the prescribed taxonomy misses. Synthesizes into a prioritized risk register with early-warning signals. Produces feedback only — no code, no tickets, no artifacts.

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。

Abductive reasoning about causes. Takes a phenomenon, separates observations from interpretations, then spawns diagnosticians applying different reasoning lenses (technical, human-factors, process, incentive-structure, environmental, temporal, measurement-artifact, statistical) in isolation. Orchestrator evaluates candidate causes for fit-against-evidence, calibrates confidence honestly, and reports leading candidate(s) with distinguishing evidence needed. Produces feedback only — no code, no tickets, no artifacts.

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。

Plan or review software architecture through a small expert panel. Use when the user explicitly asks for architecture planning, system design, technical strategy, an architecture assessment, a design review, or a system health review. Do not use for ordinary PR review, debugging, or implementation.

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, rewrite, review, and organize developer-facing documentation for web software projects. Use when creating or improving README files, docs homepages, quickstarts, tutorials, how-to guides, API/reference pages, conceptual explanations, migration guides, or troubleshooting content for frontend, backend, full-stack, SDK, API, or framework-based web products. This skill applies strong information architecture, task-first page structure, clear voice, runnable examples, version and prerequisite hygiene, accessibility rules, and docs-as-code maintenance habits. Do not use it for marketing copy, legal text, or non-technical customer-support articles.

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。

When the user wants to audit, review, or diagnose SEO issues on their site. Also use when the user mentions "SEO audit," "technical SEO," "why am I not ranking," "SEO issues," "on-page SEO," "meta tags review," "SEO health check," "my traffic dropped," "lost rankings," "not showing up in Google," "site isn't ranking," "Google update hit me," "page speed," "core web vitals," "crawl errors," or "indexing issues." Use this even if the user just says something vague like "my SEO is bad" or "help with SEO" — start with an audit. For building pages at scale to target keywords, see programmatic-seo. For adding structured data, see schema-markup. For AI search optimization, see ai-seo.

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。

When the user wants to audit, review, or diagnose SEO issues on their site. Also use when the user mentions "SEO audit," "technical SEO," "why am I not ranking," "SEO issues," "on-page SEO," "meta tags review," "SEO health check," "my traffic dropped," "lost rankings," "not showing up in Google," "site isn't ranking," "Google update hit me," "page speed," "core web vitals," "crawl errors," or "indexing issues." Use this even if the user just says something vague like "my SEO is bad" or "help with SEO" — start with an audit. For building pages at scale to target keywords, see programmatic-seo. For adding structured data, see schema. For AI search optimization, see ai-seo.

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 the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI 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。

When the user wants to optimize content for AI search engines, get cited by LLMs, or appear in AI-generated answers. Also use when the user mentions 'AI SEO,' 'AEO,' 'GEO,' 'LLMO,' 'answer engine optimization,' 'generative engine optimization,' 'LLM optimization,' 'AI Overviews,' 'optimize for ChatGPT,' 'optimize for Perplexity,' 'AI citations,' 'AI visibility,' 'zero-click search,' 'how do I show up in AI answers,' 'LLM mentions,' 'optimize for Claude/Gemini,' 'llms.txt,' 'OKF,' 'Open Knowledge Format,' 'knowledge bundle,' or 'agent-readable site.' Use this whenever someone wants their content to be cited or surfaced by AI assistants and AI search engines. For traditional technical and on-page SEO audits, see seo-audit. For structured data implementation, see schema.

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 Mermaid diagrams in DecisionsAI to explain technical topics — architecture, flows, sequences, and data models via the freestanding diagram viewer.

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。

Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation 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。

Route technical planning and review between Decisions Mermaid viewer, BuilderIO visual-plan/recap skills, and Open Design when the work needs richer artifacts.

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 Open Design for agent-native UI prototypes, decks, motion, and hand-drawn diagrams — complementary to Decisions Mermaid viewer for technical charts.

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 adversarially reviewing a document that makes formal or technical claims — math derivations, physics papers, statistical analyses, benchmark reports, whitepapers. Inventories every equation and quantitative claim, verifies each AS NAMED in the text (never a paraphrase or a neighboring statement), and classifies VERIFIED / REFUTED / UNVERIFIABLE / VACUOUS. Triggers on "check this paper", "verify these claims", "is this derivation right", "review this proof", "audit this benchmark", "does the math hold up". For source-code review see code-review-and-quality; for skill/agent library audits see skill-library-review; for content quality scoring see content-ops.

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。

Ultra-compressed communication mode. Cuts token usage ~75% by speaking like caveman while keeping full technical accuracy. Supports intensity levels: lite, full (default), ultra, wenyan-lite, wenyan-full, wenyan-ultra. Use when user says "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "use caveman", "less tokens", "be brief", or invokes /caveman. Also auto-triggers when token efficiency is 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。

Generate Architecture Decision Records with AI. Use when documenting technical decisions.

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 the Advisory Council — a multi-perspective market analysis that spawns 5 AI advisors (The Skeptic, The Macro Bull, The Risk Manager, The Technical Analyst, The Contrarian) powered by MiniMax M2...

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 technical document explaining how to set up a new server,” you’ll

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。

Transform technical git commits into polished, user-friendly changelogs and release notes. Automatically categorizes changes, translates developer language into customer-friendly copy, and generates professional changelog entries.

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。

Ultra-compressed communication mode. Cuts token usage ~75% by dropping filler, articles, and pleasantries while keeping full technical accuracy. Use when user says "caveman mode", "talk like caveman", "use caveman", "less tokens", "be brief", or invokes /caveman.

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。

Perform comprehensive technical reviews of Ruby on Rails applications. Runs automated analysis tools (RubyCritic, Brakeman, bundler-audit, Gitleaks, Debride, linters, SimpleCov, Rails stats, Rails ERD), analyzes code for architecture, security, authorization (Pundit/CanCanCan), dead code, and design issues, and produces a structured markdown report with prioritized findings and a 0-10 score. Use when the user requests a tech review, code audit, project assessment, or quality analysis of a Rails application.

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。

Prove — or honestly fail to prove — a specific technical claim: "the fix works", "it's deployed", "the service is running", "the site is done", "there are no vulnerabilities". Atomizes the claim, picks the shortest decisive signal on the evidence ladder, and returns a verdict from a fixed vocabulary (pass / partial / fail / skip) with an explicit coverage boundary. NOT code review, NOT a fix, NOT orchestration — only "what is proven, and what we merely hope". Triggers — "prove it works", "is it really done?", "are you sure?", "we deployed — is it live?", "verify that", "did we actually 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。

Extracts technical API constraints from OpenAPI/Swagger specs and developer docs into a contract-ready API Access & Constraints Schedule with source traceability, risk flags, and change-control language. Use when drafting legal exhibits or schedules covering API access scope, rate limits, authentication, data fields, or deprecation terms for MSAs, SOWs, or order forms.

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。