「questions」の検索結果

Strategy map analysis using the Eterdis two-directional causal chain. Use this skill to diagnose whether strategy is coherent by building two chains — bottom-up from resources to results, top-down from expectations to requirements — and finding where they don't connect. Runs in three modes — full diagnostic for deep sessions, review mode for quick re-assessment, and alert triggers for early-warning signals. Updates company-context.md after every run. Triggers on questions about strategic alignment, why the strategy isn't working, what to invest in, how the business creates value, whether the plan is realistic, or where the biggest gap is. Based on practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).

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 this skill to process one to 99 local exact 2:1 equirectangular panorama images with Realsee Argus, producing depth maps, a merged GLB point cloud, camera poses, optional intrinsics, and a validated local output index. Trigger for Argus panorama reconstruction, Argus ZIP input, or explicit Argus start/status/collect lifecycle requests. Do not trigger for panorama editing or stitching, arbitrary-photo 3D generation, existing GLB inspection, or research-only questions.

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。

Add new capabilities or modify NanoClaw behavior. Use when user wants to add channels (Telegram, Slack, email input), change triggers, add integrations, modify the router, or make any other customizations. This is an interactive skill that asks questions to understand what the user wants.

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。

Add new capabilities or modify NanoClaw behavior. Use when user wants to add channels (Telegram, Slack, email input), change triggers, add integrations, modify the router, or make any other customizations. This is an interactive skill that asks questions to understand what the user wants.

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。

Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise.

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。

Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back 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。

Helps users discover and install agent skills when they ask questions like "how do I do X", "find a skill for X", "is there a skill that can...", or express interest in extending capabilities. This skill should be used when the user is looking for functionality that might exist as an installable skill.

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。

Clarify ambiguous or conflicting requests by researching first, then asking only judgment calls. Use when prompts say "grill me", ask hard questions, request relentless interrogation, pressure-test assumptions, clarify scope/requirements, define success criteria, or request system-design/optimization decisions before implementation; stop before 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。

Author a completed-spec fixture — a seeded intent graph plus a believable four-phase interview transcript — for a brunch feature, so it can feed any downstream tooling that consumes a completed spec or dogfood the UI. Use when you need a real completed specification in .brunch/brunch.db for testing or demo: pick a feature from memory/SPEC.md (or a free description), choose a stress profile (coverage|clean), and produce a registered scenario seed + an interview-questions doc that match exactly.

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。

Collapse meaningful ambiguity with contrastive examples. Use when a plan/design has several plausible meanings, requirements feel vague, examples would clarify intent faster than grilling, or the user asks to disambiguate, find ambiguity, use behavioral kernels, or ask contrastive questions.

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。

Monitor PR review comments and automatically classify and address reviewer feedback including code changes, questions, and nits. Use when handling PR reviews, addressing reviewer comments, responding to code review feedback, or automating review resolution. Triggers on handle reviews, PR review, address feedback, reviewer comments, code review, review response.

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。

Fundamentals of therapeutic communication: Active listening, mirroring, paraphrasing, open questions, and validation.

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。

Answers weather questions for a location or coordinates via wttr.in (free, no API key). Current weather + 3-day forecast. Location comes from the user request or preferences; optional short cache.

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。

Ordnet freiwillig bereitgestellte Gesundheitsinformationen und bereitet Fragen für Fachpersonen vor.

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。

Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-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。

Produces a DRAFT product requirements document from the discovery notes, interview summaries, support themes, analytics notes and stakeholder messages the user provides: problem statement, target users, goals with measures as stated, numbered requirements each with a testable acceptance criterion, non-goals, constraints, dependencies and open questions, with every statement tagged evidenced, assumed or UNKNOWN so each assumption is visible for the product owner to confirm. Use when the user asks to "write a PRD", "draft the product requirements", "turn these discovery notes into requirements", "document what this feature needs to do" or "build the requirements doc for this epic". Do not use for supplier-facing requirements in a tender, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for the change ticket that ships the work, use change-request-pack. 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。

Produces a draft controls and gap pack from a requirement, regulation, standard or policy and the organisation's control descriptions: obligations broken out of the source text, the controls that appear to address each, apparent coverage, gaps, questions for control owners and actions to assess. Never concludes compliance or that a control is effective; owners and audit assess. Use when the user asks to "map this regulation to our controls", "run a controls gap analysis", "break this standard into obligations" or "where is our control coverage thin". Do not use for comparing a policy document against a standard, use policy-gap-review instead; to draft evidence requests from the mapped controls, use control-evidence-request-pack. 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 control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, 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。

Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, 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。

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 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。

Compares one clause (liability, termination, confidentiality or any other) across several contracts, templates or successive versions and returns a DRAFT comparison table: verbatim clause text per document, the clause split into elements with every difference from the baseline highlighted and categorised, and neutral questions for counsel. Never says which wording is better or enforceable. Use when the user asks to "compare the liability caps across these five supplier contracts", "line up the termination clause in these three drafts", "show how the confidentiality clause changed between versions", "contrast this clause with our template" or "benchmark the indemnity wording across our customer agreements". Do not use for a whole-contract review, use contract-review-pack instead; for screening one NDA against standard positions, use nda-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。

Drafts a DRAFT job description from a role brief, team context and the organisation's own template, in inclusive plain language, with every requirement traced to its source, unconfirmed fields marked TBC and a numbered list of items the hiring manager must confirm before posting. Use when the user asks to "write a job description", "draft the job ad", "refresh this role profile", "tidy up this vacancy notice" or "turn these notes into a job posting" from a brief, notes or an old job description. Do not use for interview questions or a scorecard from the finished job description, use interview-scorecard-builder instead; for the new hire's first 90 days, 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。