「what」の検索結果

Reads an accounts payable exception list (mismatches, possible duplicates, missing or exhausted purchase orders, missing receipts, vendor or bank detail differences) with any invoice, purchase order and receipt data supplied, and returns a DRAFT action sheet: per line, the exception as stated, the facts as read, the difference where both sides exist, one proposed next action for the accounts payable clerk to perform, who or what it needs, and a draft query, with UNKNOWN wherever the data is silent. Use when the user asks to "review these invoice exceptions", "work through the AP exception queue", "what should I do with these blocked invoices", "propose next steps for the three-way match failures" or "sort out the duplicate and missing PO invoices". Do not use for a purchase order log screened for anomalies, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; for an expense claim against policy, use expense-policy-precheck. 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 a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Works Council Representative archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, employee-impact risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this as the works council would", "what would the works council say about this rollout", "prepare me for the staff council consultation", "find the employee-impact gaps in this plan" or "pressure-test this deck from the employee representative side". Do not use for people strategy, restructuring or HR policy, use chro-reviewer instead; for whether frontline staff will adopt or work around the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Marketing Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, marketing risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CMO review", "pressure-test the positioning", "what would a CMO say about this", "challenge the launch plan" or "check the messaging and audience". Do not use for price economics, margins or payback, use cfo-reviewer instead; for sales pipeline mechanics, use cro-reviewer. 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 board paper skeleton from the sponsor's inputs: purpose, recommendation as the sponsor states it, options including do nothing, risks, financials exactly as provided, authority to decide and the decision sought, with every claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so the sponsor sees what still needs support. Use when the user asks to "draft a board paper", "structure the committee paper", "prepare the decision paper for the investment committee", "skeleton the board memo" or "what goes in the paper for the audit committee". Do not use for a pre-read or briefing pack with no resolution sought, use executive-briefing-pack instead; to record a decision already taken in a discussion, use decision-memo-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, use ciso-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck, pricing plan, go-to-market plan or forecast in character as a Chief Revenue Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to exact passages, revenue risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CRO review", "pressure-test the revenue plan", "what would sales leadership say about this" or "challenge this forecast". Do not use for partnership, deal-structure or market-positioning reviews, use cbo-reviewer instead; for the finance seat use cfo-reviewer. 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。

Collect this machine's local Claude Code conversation data with the asz collector. Resolves the local Claude data directory (honouring CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR and XDG_CONFIG_HOME), builds the binary, lists what is discoverable, and lands everything into the storage root. Use when asked to collect, backfill, re-collect, or inspect local Claude Code sessions, or to check what the collector can see.

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 plan, map, or restructure their website's page hierarchy, navigation, URL structure, or internal linking. Also use when the user mentions "sitemap," "site map," "visual sitemap," "site structure," "page hierarchy," "information architecture," "IA," "navigation design," "URL structure," "breadcrumbs," "internal linking strategy," "website planning," "what pages do I need," "how should I organize my site," or "site navigation." Use this whenever someone is planning what pages a website should have and how they connect. NOT for XML sitemaps (that's technical SEO — see seo-audit). For SEO audits, see seo-audit. For structured data, 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。

When the user wants to create, plan, or optimize a lead magnet for email capture or lead generation. Also use when the user mentions "lead magnet," "gated content," "content upgrade," "downloadable," "ebook," "cheat sheet," "checklist," "template download," "opt-in," "freebie," "PDF download," "resource library," "content offer," "email capture content," "Notion template," "spreadsheet template," or "what should I give away for emails." Use this for planning what to create and how to distribute it. For interactive tools as lead magnets, see free-tools. For writing the actual content, see copywriting. For the email sequence after capture, see emails.

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 needs marketing ideas, inspiration, or strategies for their SaaS or software product. Also use when the user asks for 'marketing ideas,' 'growth ideas,' 'how to market,' 'marketing strategies,' 'marketing tactics,' 'ways to promote,' 'ideas to grow,' 'what else can I try,' 'I don't know how to market this,' 'brainstorm marketing,' or 'what marketing should I do.' Use this as a starting point whenever someone is stuck or looking for inspiration on how to grow. For specific channel execution, see the relevant skill (ads, social, emails, etc.).

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 flowctl catalog status to check the control-plane state of an Estuary resource, or list catalog specs to see which connectors exist and which are active. Use when checking whether a task is running, disabled, or failing, interpreting status output, or enumerating connectors. Use when user says "check task status", "is my capture running", "catalog status", "flowctl catalog status", "what's wrong with my capture", "task failing", "check catalog status", "collection status", "derivation status", "why is my task disabled", "list my connectors", "show me my connectors", "list captures", "list materializations", "what connectors do I have", or "show me all my active connectors".

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 a test strategy around product risk, business invariants, failure modes, and existing controls, deciding what deserves testing and at which boundary rather than maximising coverage. Use whenever the user asks how to test something, wants a test plan or strategy, is deciding between unit/integration/contract/E2E/property/concurrency testing, or wants to know whether existing tests actually protect what matters. Prefer this over writing tests immediately. Part of the audit suite; inherits the shared constitution while its own job is proving risk coverage.

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。

リポジトリの構造・技術スタック・機能一覧・セットアップ手順を動的に解析し、 包括的なドキュメントを自動生成するスキル。言語・フレームワーク問わず汎用的に動作する。 Use this skill whenever the user asks to: - Explain a repository / リポジトリの説明 / リポジトリの概要 - Generate a README / README生成 / README作成 - Understand project structure / プロジェクト構成を教えて / 構造を説明して - Learn how to run a project / 使い方を教えて / 動かし方 / セットアップ方法 - Get a repo overview / repo overview / explain this repo / what does this repo do - List features / 機能一覧 / このプロジェクトは何ができる？ - Onboard to a new codebase / コードベースのキャッチアップ / 新しいリポジトリに入った - "このリポジトリ何？" "プロジェクトの全体像" "how to run this project" - "コードの全体を把握したい" "ドキュメントを整備して" "技術スタックを知りたい" This skill is especially useful when joining a new project, onboarding team members, or when a repository lacks proper documentation. It works with ANY repository regardless of programming language, framework, or project type.

How to upgrade `alchemy` and the `effect` constellation across this repo and keep them consistent for consumers: which packages pin what, why `effect` and every `@effect/*` companion move as one set, what breaks in a typical upgrade, and how to verify a standalone `npm install` still resolves a single `effect`. Use when asked to upgrade or bump alchemy or effect, when a deploy dies inside an alchemy provider with a `TypeError` naming a missing combinator, when `check:npm-effect-resolution` fails, or when deciding whether the alchemy patch is still needed.

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。

4-layer recall procedure (durable → semantic → PostgreSQL → daily notes) before claiming "no context". Invoke when user explicitly asks "do you remember", "what did we discuss about X", "search history". NOT a general assistant — only fires when recall is the explicit task. Drop the prior "use proactively" rule. Triggers: "do you remember", "what did we discuss", "when did", "find that conversation about".

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。

OpenClaw API gateway proxy for authenticated SaaS calls (100+ services in references/SERVICES.md). Use ONLY when making an HTTP request to a third-party service that requires the gateway's stored credentials. NOT for direct API calls with bearer tokens already in scope, NOT for monday.com (use monday-for-agents), NOT for WhatsApp (use heleni-whatsapp). Triggers: "call the X API", "fetch from <service>", "send to Slack via gateway", "use the gateway for".

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。

Evaluate everything the PA agent manages — tasks, skills, PA network health, billing, calendar connections, and memory quality. Use when: owner asks for an evaluation, wants to know what's working and what isn't, or requests a performance report. Combines supervisor status with quality scoring.

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。