3,661 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Write tests that pin real behavior instead of implementation details, config values, or lucky samples. Use when adding tests for new behavior, writing a regression test, fixing a brittle or flaky test, reviewing a test diff, or when a test breaks after a refactor or config change that didn't change behavior.
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 the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the codebase or domain is unfamiliar, the user will "know it when they see it", a reference implementation must be understood before porting, mid-build deviations from the plan need capturing, or a finished change needs buy-in or verified understanding before merge. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) — walk the quadrants to burn off fog before slicing, and feed the finished map into the spec.
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 the local Codex CLI as an independent second agent. Two branches — (1) proactively run `codex review` for a second opinion after completing a substantive change, before presenting it as done or committing; (2) delegate a well-defined implementation task via `codex exec`, ONLY when the user explicitly asks for Codex to do it. Also covers how to prompt Codex.
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 a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).
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。
Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.
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 screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.
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 schemas and migrations, tune queries, or plan vector retrieval and database operations. Application API implementation uses oma-backend.
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-first ideation that explores user intent, constraints, and approaches before any planning or implementation. Use for brainstorming, ideation, exploring concepts, and evaluating approaches.
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。
Turn product requirements into scoped tasks with dependencies and acceptance criteria. Use for implementation planning and prioritization.
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。
Detect insecure JWT (JSON Web Token) implementations in a codebase using a two-phase approach: first map all JWT issuance and verification sites to understand the token lifecycle and signing configuration, then check each verification site for exploitable weaknesses such as algorithm confusion, missing signature verification, weak secrets, header injection, and missing claim validation. Requires sast/architecture.md (run sast-analysis first). Outputs findings to sast/jwt-results.md. If no JWT usage is found in Phase 1, Phase 2 is skipped. Use when asked to find JWT, token forgery, or authentication bypass bugs.
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。
Drive one accepted change through implementation and checks to done, with one fresh review only where a mistake is costly. Use when: selected by name.
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。
Engineering operating model for teams where AI agents generate a large share of implementation output.
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 only after explicit Codex `$superloopy:superloopy-research` or Claude Code `/superloopy:superloopy-research` invocation, a research task started with a leading `loopy` or `루피` (such as `loopy research`), or an active Superloopy loop explicitly routing a research deliverable here. Evidence-backed Superloopy research orchestration with automatic advisory usage targets, parallel read-only lanes, per-retrieval verdicts, graded and dated sources, empirical verification, a priced claim ledger, cited synthesis, and optional reports. Do not activate from research, investigate, look-up, summarize, deep-dive, report, or similar vocabulary alone, in any language; ordinary questions, debugging, and implementation context-gathering stay with their primary workflows.
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。
Hreflang and international SEO audit, validation, and generation. Detects common mistakes, validates language/region codes, and generates correct hreflang implementations. Use when user says "hreflang", "i18n SEO", "international SEO", "multi-language", "multi-region", or "language tags".
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。
Strategic SEO planning for new or existing websites. Industry-specific templates, competitive analysis, content strategy, and implementation roadmap. Use when user says "SEO plan", "SEO strategy", "SEO planning", "content strategy", "keyword strategy", "content calendar", "site architecture", or "SEO roadmap".
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。
Critical pre-implementation review. Find what AI breaks. Verdict: PROCEED, REVISE, or RETHINK. Triggers: review plan, tear apart, critique, analyze.
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。
Recall project-scoped Waggle history about a topic, component, decision, bug, experiment, or implementation attempt.
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 reviewing a DataFusion Comet pull request that adds or changes a Spark expression, its Scala serde, its protobuf message, or its native Rust implementation. Load alongside review-comet-pr, which covers the parts of the review that apply to every PR.
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 Spark expression in DataFusion Comet. Walks through cloning latest Spark master to study the canonical implementation, checking the upstream datafusion-spark crate before writing native code, building the Comet serde and Rust wire-up from the contributor guide, then running audit-comet-expression to drive a test-coverage iteration loop.
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 picking the next Spark expression to implement natively in Comet, or when asked whether a specific codegen-dispatched expression is worth a native Rust implementation. Scores the candidate on how likely a native path can be 100% Spark-compatible and how much throughput or allocation it would save versus the JVM codegen dispatcher, records the verdict in the per-expression audit log so disqualified candidates are not re-litigated, and files a GitHub issue for the recommendation.
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 generated or changed production code before it ships, using Clean Code, SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, and LLM-specific failure-mode checks in any programming language. Best used reactively after an agent writes, edits, refactors, or fixes code, before presenting, committing, or merging the result. Use when the user asks "review this PR", "is this safe to merge?", "make this cleaner", "audit this code", "refactor this", "fix this bug", or after a coding agent produced implementation code. Can also guide writing when explicitly invoked before a risky edit. Invoke it on your own initiative the moment you finish writing, editing, or refactoring non-trivial production code, before presenting or committing — don't wait to be asked. DO NOT USE for factual/conceptual questions, CI/tooling config, git workflow, running/debugging tests, pure architecture discussion, prose writing, data analysis, or test-code review (use test-guard).
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 generated or changed test code against universal testing rules before it ships. Best used reactively after an agent writes, edits, generates, or refactors tests, before presenting, committing, or merging them. Use for pytest (test_*.py, *_test.py), PHPUnit/Pest (*Test.php), Jest/Vitest (*.test.ts, *.spec.js), Go (*_test.go), files under tests/, __tests__/, or spec/, and review requests like 'write tests for X', 'add tests', 'test this', 'review these tests', or PR diffs containing tests. Can also guide test writing when explicitly invoked before the work. This skill is the quality gate that prevents AI-generated test bloat. DO NOT USE for production or implementation code review (use clean-code-guard), CI or test-runner configuration, running or debugging tests, or general architecture discussion.
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 or upgrade Model Advisor checks for Simulink and System Composer models. Covers the full lifecycle: guideline authoring, check specification, Model Advisor check implementation, and qualification testing. Use when creating new checks (edit-time, standard batch, config-parameter, auto-fix), converting legacy StyleOne/StyleTwo/StyleThree checks to modern DetailStyle, creating a guideline for modeling, enforcing a modeling rule, or testing/qualifying a check. Triggers on any modeling constraint (e.g., "blocks shall...", "signals must match...", "parameters shall be set to...").
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。
Specify algorithms for Model-Based Design: system specs, architecture specs, implementation plans, test plans. Use when creating specifications for controllers, signal processing, diagnostics, estimators, or other algorithms authored in Simulink, Stateflow, System Composer, or MATLAB Function blocks.
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。