1,484 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Discover, compare, and compose existing open-source GitHub repositories for a user's goal, using GitHub MCP for live discovery and verification plus Context7 semantic retrieval over repository code and official documentation. Use when a user asks for GitHub repo recommendations, open-source alternatives, a multi-repository solution stack, project comparison, or help choosing an implementation to adopt.
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。
Compose a comparison newsletter from Ahmad's OpenMark saves — A vs B vs C, side-by-side, table-driven. Use when Ahmad wants to compare tools, models, frameworks, approaches, or platforms across his saves. Trigger phrases include "compare", "X vs Y", "head to head", "which should I use", "differences between", "trade-offs between", "/newsletter-comparison". Output centers a markdown table with consistent columns, supports it with short prose blocks, ends with a clear 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。
Check the current app's pinned Convex components against recommended versions and upgrade them behind a build gate.
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。
Audit websites for SEO, performance, security, technical, content, and 15 other issue cateories with 230+ rules using the squirrelscan CLI. Returns LLM-optimized reports with health scores, broken links, meta tag analysis, and actionable recommendations. Use to discover and asses website o...
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。
Comprehensive AWS cost analysis and optimization recommendations using AWS CLI and Cost Explorer
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。
Determine the best Anthropic architecture for your project by analyzing requirements and recommending the optimal combination of Skills, Agents, Prompts, and SDK primitives.
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。
Simulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback. Triggers when a user asks to "review my paper," "simulate peer review," or "give my paper a peer review.
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。
Facilitate structured post-incident reviews to identify root causes, document what worked and failed, and produce actionable recommendations to improve future incident 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。
Auditing Google Cloud Platform IAM permissions to identify overly permissive bindings, primitive role usage, service account key proliferation, and cross-project access risks using gcloud CLI, Policy Analyzer, and IAM Recommender.
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 you need to send or manage iMessages via BlueBubbles (recommended iMessage integration). Calls go through the generic message tool with channel="bluebubbles".
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。
Audit websites for SEO, performance, security, technical, content, and 15 other issue cateories with 230+ rules using the squirrelscan CLI. Returns LLM-optimized reports with health scores, broken links, meta tag analysis, and actionable recommendations. Use to discover and asses website or webapp issues and health.
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。
This skill should be used when reviewing vendor estimates for software development projects. Use this skill when you need to evaluate whether a vendor's cost estimate, timeline, and approach are reasonable and whether the project is likely to succeed. This skill helps identify gaps, risks, overestimates, underestimates, and unfavorable contract terms. It generates comprehensive Markdown review reports with actionable recommendations to optimize costs while ensuring project success.
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。
This skill should be used when providing ITIL 4-based IT service management consulting. Use this when organizations need guidance on implementing ITIL 4 practices, improving service management maturity, optimizing IT operations, or aligning IT services with business objectives. Provides tailored recommendations based on department, scenario, and organizational context using comprehensive ITIL 4 knowledge.
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。
Compile deep repository evidence into artifact-bound correctness doctrine — authority/law/proof maps, owned invariants, failure archaeology, and the strongest durable destination for each piece of knowledge, plus an optional minimal repository-specific skill portfolio. Use when the user wants both deep codebase understanding AND durable doctrine, knowledge routing, or repo-specific skill recommendations. Research discoverable facts before asking. Read-only. Not for quick onboarding, one isolated invariant, ordinary implementation, generic review, or direct skill creation.
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。
Detects deeply nested loops with duplicated inline logic and recommends extracting into small, named functions. Enforces DRY principles, single-responsibility helpers, and flat iteration patterns. Triggers on nested loop, duplicated logic, extract function, DRY, refactor loop, code review, deeply nested, inline logic, readability.
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。
Knowledge base from NIST SP 800-61 Rev. 3 (Incident Response Recommendations for Cybersecurity Risk Management). Use for CSF 2.0-aligned incident response life cycles, IR roles, Community Profile priorities for DE/RS/RC and preparation, playbooks, coordination, and continuous improvement. Covers 800-61r3 only; does not replace CSF 2.0 full text, SP 800-61r2 tactical playbooks, or sector-specific breach-notification law.
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。
Knowledge base from the FAA Requirements Engineering Management Handbook (DOT/FAA/AR-08/32). Use for writing requirements for real-time, embedded control systems — the avionics/medical slant — via the Handbook's eleven recommended practices: system overview and boundary (monitored/controlled variables), operational concepts (use cases), environmental assumptions, change-tolerant functional architecture (dependency diagrams), safety-driven architecture revision (FHA/PSSA/fault tree), system modes, detailed behavior and performance requirements (ideal value + tolerance + latency), the four-variable model bridge to software requirements (MON/CON/NAT/REQ, IN'/REQ'/OUT', DO-178B mapping), subsystem allocation, and rationale. Carries the Isolette Thermostat and Flight Control System worked examples. Slanted toward control systems with sensors and actuators; thin on information-system / enterprise / agile requirements, on requirements-management tooling, and on the formal-methods internals of SCR/RSML/SpecTRM (it names them, does not re-teach them). Does not reproduce the IEEE/DO-178B/ARP standards it cites.
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。
Knowledge base from the DoD M&S VV&A Recommended Practices Guide (RPG web edition). Use for verification, validation, and accreditation of models and simulations — role responsibilities (user, developer, M&S PM, V&V agent, accreditation agent), fidelity, validation fundamentals, data V&V, risk-informed accreditation, T&E/V&V integration, referent development, and conceptual-model validation. Complements nasa-ms-7009 and T&E packs; does not replace DoDI 5000.61 or Service VV&A policies.
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。
Router and protocol for reading and extracting web content. Decides first WHAT is needed (main text vs. structure vs. screenshot) and then WHICH tool available on the system delivers it. If nothing suitable is present, it recommends installing the web-scraper module.
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 whenever several decisions are pending or have accumulated -- whether within a topic, project, document, or over the course of a session: inventory them, present a numbered briefing with options A/B/C/D and a marked recommendation, accept letter answers (including batches), record the results, and write them back into the source documents.
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 vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill 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。
Reads two or more supplier, bid or tender responses against a requirements list and returns a DRAFT comparison pack: a requirement-by-supplier matrix, gaps per supplier, clarification questions and neutral observations, for an evaluation panel. Never scores, weights, ranks or recommends a winner; the award stays with the panel. Use when the user asks to "compare these bids", "matrix the tender responses against our requirements", "collate the RFQ replies", "show me where each supplier falls short" or "draft clarification questions for the bidders". Do not use for scoring or weighting against agreed criteria, use supplier-evaluation-matrix instead, or for writing the requirements, use rfp-requirements-pack 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。
Builds a DRAFT weighted supplier evaluation matrix from supplier responses and the panel's agreed criteria, weights and scale: a provisional score per cell with the quoted evidence and anchor behind it, a register of every missing or partial answer, and calibration and sensitivity flags. Provisional for panel moderation; never recommends, awards or disqualifies. Use when the user asks to score, weight or rank supplier, bid or tender responses against agreed criteria, for example "score these bids", "build the evaluation matrix", "weight the tender responses" or "rank the suppliers against our criteria". Do not use for a side-by-side comparison without scores, use rfp-comparison-pack instead; for writing the criteria, use rfp-requirements-pack 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。
Reads a contract list (spreadsheet, CSV or pasted table) and returns a DRAFT renewal radar: each active contract's end date, notice deadline with its arithmetic, days remaining, renewal type, owner and the decision it needs as options, sorted by urgency, with owner action lists and a deadline calendar. Never renews, terminates, serves notice or recommends. Use when the user asks to "build a renewal tracker", "tell me what comes up for renewal", "work out when notice is due", "show me which contracts auto-renew" or "run the quarterly contract review". Do not use for reviewing one contract's full text or clauses, use contract-review-pack 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。