「its」の検索結果

Erweitert automation-self-care um Letter Hooks, Preflight-Bootloader, Dokument-Traversierungsregeln und selbstheilende Prompt-Kontext- Anreicherung für KI-Agenten und CLIs ohne native, ereignisgetriebene JSON-Lifecycle-Hooks (wie Antigravity / Gemini CLI). Nutzen, wenn ein Agent Preflight-Regeln injizieren, vor Arbeitsbeginn Memory/Gardener durchsuchen, Verzeichnis-Dokument-Lesestrategien erzwingen (CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md) oder Sidecar-Tasks dynamisch an Skills und Sicherheitsprotokolle routen soll.

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。

Interaktives Reißverschluss-Audit-Verfahren für eine Serie von Apps/Prüfobjekten: der User testet live und gibt kurzes Feedback im Chat, der Agent startet dabei bereits das nächste Objekt UND wertet parallel das Feedback des vorigen aus (strukturiert erfassen, Reparaturaufträge sofort an Worker delegieren) — statt sequenziell zu warten. Nutze diesen Skill bei "human-loop-audit", "lass uns die Apps im Reißverschluss durchtesten", "ich teste, du wertest aus und reparierst", oder wenn eine Reihe von GUIs/Produkten gemeinsam mit dem Nutzer durchgetestet werden soll und Befunde sofort in Reparaturen münden sollen. Abschluss ist eine strukturierte Befundliste je Objekt (Funktioniert/Defekt/Wunsch) plus die Liste der bereits gestarteten Reparaturen.

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。

Regelmäßiger Pflegedurchlauf für ein bereits veröffentlichtes GitHub-Repository (Stufe 1, günstig und oft wiederholbar): zuerst alle Distributionsflächen des Projekts ermitteln (npm, PyPI, Registries, Marketplaces, Stores, Website) und Änderungen später dorthin spiegeln, dann Topics setzen, Privacy-Gate, Dokumente auf Veröffentlichungsabsicht prüfen und interne Planungsdateien nachträglich ignorieren, Banner ergänzen, Aussagen im README gegen den echten Code-Stand abgleichen, Darstellung verbessern, Sprachfassungen der README vervollständigen, Sichtbarkeitsmaßnahmen umsetzen, Eintrag auf der Organisationsseite prüfen sowie offene Issues und Pull Requests abarbeiten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein bestehendes Repo gepflegt, aufgeräumt, aktualisiert, aufgehübscht oder "mal wieder durchgesehen" werden soll, wenn ein Repo veraltet oder unaufgeräumt wirkt, bei Formulierungen wie "Repo-Pflege", "after care", "Nachpflege", "Repo auf Stand bringen", "aufräumen und pushen" oder bei rotierenden Qualitätsrunden über mehrere Repos. Für die tiefe Runde inkl. Rechtscheck und orga-übergreifenden Querverweisen stattdessen full-after-care nutzen; für die Erstveröffentlichung github-repo-care.

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。

Writes a DRAFT weekly KPI report from the figures the user pastes or attaches (this week, last week, optionally target and earlier weeks): a metrics table with change versus last week computed only from the stated figures, plain-language notes per metric, and numbered questions on every figure that moved more than the agreed threshold, crossed its target or broke its run. Use when the user asks to "write the weekly KPI report", "turn these numbers into this week's metrics report", "what changed versus last week", "draft the Monday numbers update" or "add commentary to this metrics table". Do not use for a recurring emailed report with a maintained trend sheet, use report-attachment-analyzer instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer. 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 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。

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。

Drafts one knowledge article or known-error article from a resolved incident or ticket thread: symptoms as reported, environment, cause exactly as the resolver stated it, resolution steps as performed, workaround with its limits, verification, things tried without effect, related records, keywords and proposed metadata, every statement traced to a ticket note or marked UNKNOWN, with a redaction log and a question list for the knowledge owner. Never decides a root cause, adds a step or publishes. Use when the user asks to "write a KB article from this ticket", "turn this resolved incident into a knowledge article", "draft a known error record for this", "document the fix we just did" or "make this thread into a how-to for the service desk". Do not use for a procedure the team will execute (runbook, operating procedure, playbook), use runbook-drafter instead; for a post-incident review, 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。

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。

Turns a campaign idea, its objectives and the supporting notes (audience material, offer facts, budget and dates, channel list) into one DRAFT one-page campaign brief: objectives, audience, one single-minded message with sourced proof points, channels and timeline, success measures with baselines, mandatories, risks and numbered open questions for the campaign owner. Use when the user asks to "write a campaign brief", "draft a creative brief for this launch", "turn this idea into a one-page brief", "tighten this brief to one page" or "build the marketing brief from these notes". Do not use for a message house, messaging pillars or a launch narrative on its own, use message-house-builder instead; for laying the campaign onto dated slots, use content-calendar-planner. 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 and maintains a DRAFT impact log from notes, messages, status updates and completed work: one row per outcome with its evidence and evidence level, date, who benefited and the source it traces to, plus a gap list of outcomes that still lack evidence, structured so a later review, appraisal or promotion case can draw on it. Use when the user asks to "start an impact log", "add this to my impact log", "log what I achieved this quarter", "pull my wins out of these notes", "turn these messages into evidence for my review" or "what do I have evidence for so far". Do not use for a performance rating, ranking, pay or promotion decision, the skill records evidence and never judges it; for the review narrative itself, use performance-review-drafter; for a role profile built from the work, use job-description-drafter 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。

Drafts one issue of an internal newsletter from the items the user provides (notes, messages, snippets, meeting outputs, contributor submissions): a running order with the reason for each position, a factual headline and one paragraph per item with its source line, one call to action per item with date and route, two subject-line options, an item register accounting for every item supplied, and a list of items that need an owner's confirmation before send. Use when the user asks to "draft this month's newsletter", "turn these items into the team update", "write the staff bulletin from these notes", "order and headline these items" or "prepare the internal digest". Do not use for one piece of news that needs its own send, use announcement-drafter instead; for a digest of external news, use news-monitor-digest; for a personal weekly status note, use weekly-status-update-writer. 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。

Work with SuperCollider projects as files - the shape of a .scd piece, how to read and write one with sc_project, how to send the file that is on disk into the live session with sc_load, what state belongs in the session and what belongs in the file, and how to package a piece the SuperCollider way (a folder with its .scd, its SynthDefs, and a Quark-style layout) instead of inventing a format.

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 generating, modifying, explaining, or reviewing TBQ3 Bar-based trading strategies with OnBar, OnInit, OnReady, entries, exits, MarketPosition, stop profit/loss, sizing, slippage, commission, multi-symbol, or cross-period logic.

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。

Search academic references for a manuscript and export them to a verified refs CSV, then optionally hand off to cec-sheet. Uses Codex CLI as the search driver, but Codex calls a bundled deterministic PubMed tool (scripts/pubmed_search.py) instead of writing its own E-utilities code — bibliography is fetched live from PubMed so PMIDs are never fabricated. Triggers: "論文検索", "文献検索", "文脈検索", "コンテキスト検索", "原稿の引用を探して", "refs.csv", "codex-refs", "/codex-refs".

Use WooCommerce's customer and session APIs correctly — WC ships its own session handler (WC_Session_Handler, single wp_woocommerce_sessions table for both guests and logged-in users) and its own customer object (WC_Customer via WC()->customer), separate from $_SESSION / native PHP sessions / wp_get_current_user. AI consistently reaches for $_SESSION (breaks with page caching, setcookie (no signing, no namespacing), or user_meta for guests (impossible). The correct path is WC()->session->set/get for ephemeral per-visitor data, WC()->customer->get_billing_* for the active customer context including guests, and new WC_Customer($user_id) for one-off loads. Important — WC()->session is auto-initialized only on frontend requests (incl. admin-ajax); REST, cron, and WP-CLI must call wc_load_cart() explicitly. Use when storing per-visitor state, reading the current visitor's billing data, or debugging session loss across page caches / REST / cron. Triggers on WC_Session, WC_Session_Handler,...

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。

Per-toolkit hardening audit loop for NV oOS Pro tools. Systematically scans each addons/pro/includes/tools/<toolkit> (and its plugins/nvoos-content-graph-pro mirror) for the four recurring production failure classes — unguarded shell calls that fatal on exec-disabled hosts, calls to nonexistent client methods, string-assuming parsing of provider responses that may be arrays, and provider enum/service mismatches — then fixes, tests (Docker PHPUnit), and validates (phpcs both standards) before moving to the next toolkit. Use when asked to audit a toolkit, review the X tools for similar issues, do the same for the other toolkits, or continue the toolkit audit loop. The first case study (document-generation) found 3 fatal bugs + 1 broken regex.

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。

Goal-integrity skill. Use for backend/API/persistence, preserve/do-not-change, tests/validation, mocks, rework, multi-part requests. Emits Goal Contracts, Deviation Notices, Phase Checks, Final Audits

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 asks to "build a message house", "write a PR-FAQ for our launch", or "define the launch narrative and value pillars"; derives from the positioning canvas a message house — tagline, one-liner, three value pillars, per-persona proof points (each labeled Measured / User-provided / [needs source]) — plus a working-backwards PR-FAQ narrative spine (launch-day tense, empty-chair test, five external + five internal FAQs) and per-channel message angle packs (angles, not finished copy). Not for the positioning canvas itself — use positioning-mapper; not for finished blog posts or pages — use content-writer; not for ad or email units — use each discipline creative builder; not for claim adjudication — use offer-claims-registry. 消息屋/PR-FAQ/价值支柱/发布叙事

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 asks to "design an employee advocacy program", "set up founder-led sharing", or "build a share kit for the team"; produces an advocacy program blueprint in two modes — participation-driven opt-in (default) or top-down assigned with its coercion and authenticity risks flagged — with a voluntary opt-in roster spec submitted as channel-registry proposal events, share kits with mandatory per-person variation, staggered human posting windows plus anti-pod guardrails (no coordinated identical reshares, no engagement rings), per-person material-connection disclosure lines per FTC and 《互联网广告管理办法》, and a Slack/Teams distribution spec. Not for paid creator campaigns — use campaign-planner. 员工倡导/创始人IP分享/内部分享计划/披露合规

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 asks to "map the category narrative", "tear down how competitors tell their story", or "find the language conventions in our market"; produces a category narrative map — the dominant stories and points of view in the category, its language conventions and framing clichés, and a per-competitor narrative teardown (arc, claimed onlyness, proof pattern) plus how each rival's messaging has shifted over time (scraped copy vs archived copy). Not for the positioning canvas itself — use positioning-mapper; not for the beachhead's beliefs and objections — use audience-belief-mapper; not for SERP keyword targeting — use keyword-research; not for claim adjudication — use offer-claims-registry. 品类叙事/竞争叙事拆解/语言惯例/叙事演变

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。

Distill an already-built or near-launch product into one incisive brand kernel — the "reveal" already hiding in its name, story, or the product itself — then build the name, voice, visual identity, and a developer-ready handoff kit around it. This is LATE-STAGE branding: use it when there is a real, thought-through product that is about to launch, or already live but not explained in a way people grasp in an instant. Use whenever the user wants to name or rename a product, find a tagline or slogan, create a brand identity / brand kit / style guide / design system, design a logo, wordmark, palette, or type system, mock up a homepage for a launch, or hand brand assets to a coding agent (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor). Trigger even when the user only says their product needs to "land" or "feel like" something, or that they can't explain it simply yet. Do NOT use for half-baked, pre-product ideas with nothing to excavate — this skill extracts a kernel that already exists; it does not invent one from a blank canvas.

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。

Map and attack the authentication, authorization, session, tenant, federation, and machine-identity boundaries of a system, proving whether access controls actually hold rather than whether they appear to. Use whenever work touches login, sessions, tokens, roles, permissions, multi-tenancy, password reset, invitations, OAuth/OIDC/SAML, API keys, service accounts, webhooks, admin impersonation, or any question of "can this actor do or see this thing." Prefer this over a generic security pass for identity-heavy surfaces. Part of the audit suite; inherits the shared constitution while its own job is proving or disproving access boundaries.

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。

Reproduce, isolate, and diagnose a specific software failure before changing production behaviour, then propose the smallest safe fix with regression protection. Use whenever the user reports a bug, crash, error, stack trace, flaky test, incorrect output, "works on my machine," intermittent failure, regression after a deploy, or any behaviour that diverges from expectation and the cause is not obvious. Prefer this over jumping straight to a fix. Part of the audit suite; inherits the shared constitution, while its own job is proving causality.

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。

Control risky structural change by proving a refactor is necessary and that behaviour, contracts, data, security boundaries, and operational properties can be preserved through a staged migration. Use whenever the user wants to refactor, restructure, clean up, modernise, extract, migrate, rewrite, or re-architect existing code, or asks whether they should. Prefer this over starting the refactor. DO NOT REFACTOR is a first-class outcome. Part of the audit suite; inherits the shared constitution while its own job is proving necessity and behavioural preservation.

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。