1,543 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Create, modify, or refactor application use cases into Laravel-native DDD Actions. Use for business operations such as placing or cancelling orders, extracting controller orchestration, and fixing use-case 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。
Create or change immutable business values with meaningful invariants, equality, or behavior, such as order numbers and money. Use when primitive values obscure domain rules; avoid wrapping every scalar.
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 product designs before engineering handoff or release for flow and state coverage, business-rule alignment, implementation clarity, accessibility, responsiveness, analytics, and testability.
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 a product requirement, PRD, brief, or meeting note before design or development; expose missing decisions, contradictions, edge cases, dependencies, and validation gaps without inventing business rules.
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。
Generate audit-ready internal control design documents from As-Is business process inventories. Produces control IDs, assertion mappings, procedures, SoD analysis, KPIs, materiality thresholds, and implementation roadmaps. Use when building internal controls for new audit engagements, SOX/J-SOX compliance, or process improvement initiatives.
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 professional internal emails for coordination tasks like vendor quote requests, task delegation, and follow-up communications. Generates bilingual (JA/EN) email drafts with proper business tone. Use when user needs to draft internal emails for vendor RFQ forwarding, quote compilation requests, status updates, or task delegation.
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。
Professional financial analysis skill for investment decisions, budgeting, financial statement analysis, and business plan evaluation. Use this skill when you need to analyze financial ratios (profitability, safety, efficiency), calculate DCF/NPV/IRR valuations, perform budget variance analysis, or conduct sensitivity/scenario analysis. Triggers include "analyze financial statements", "calculate DCF", "investment evaluation", "budget variance", "財務分析", "投資評価", "予算差異分析".
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。
要求分析ツリーの業務要求を作成（Phase 4-1）
業務要求の良い点・悪い点を分析し、改善点と改善のための問いを生成
ビジネスコンテキストフローを作る時の観点を説明する
ビジネスコンテキストフロー（業務像モデル）を作成
検証結果に基づいて業務要求を洗練・修正する
業務要求を作る時の観点を説明する
Conduct a Marty-Cagan-style opportunity assessment interview and produce a ~2-page Opportunity Brief in Confluence. Covers business objective, customer, problem, success metric, current alternatives, assumptions/risks, and what we don't know yet. Triggers on "opportunity brief", "opportunity assessment", "discovery brief", "who is this for", "why are we building this", "validate this idea", "product discovery", or any request to frame a feature before implementation. One question at a time. Records accepted research gaps as structured Confluence Decision pages with bidirectional links.
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。
Load for .NET observability changes involving structured logs/Loki, Prometheus metrics, OpenTelemetry traces, exception handling, correlation IDs, dashboards, alerts, or production error diagnosis; not for ordinary business validation errors.
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 synthesized from the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) v2.14 by the BKCASE Project. Use for the established systems-engineering canon: SE fundamentals and foundations (systems science, systems thinking, the systems approach, modelling/MBSE), the life cycle (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288/24748/24774 process, development & agile approaches, model selection/tailoring), technical management, concept definition, architecture/realization (the Vee), V&V, maintenance/sustainment, SE standards, and the application contexts (product, service, enterprise, systems-of-systems, healthcare), plus enabling SE (business/team/individual), related disciplines, quality attributes/specialty engineering, implementation examples, and emerging knowledge. Good for grounding background, vocabulary, and prior-art positions across all eight SEBoK Parts. SCOPE LIMITS: this pack is SEBoK v2.14 only (released 2026-05-18); it synthesizes and signposts rather than reproducing the source — it does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE standard text, is a curated guide (not a complete textbook), and is thin on AI-integration depth (Part 8 is a staging area, not settled practice). LICENCE: content is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 — non-commercial use only, attribution to the BKCASE Project required, share-alike obligations carry forward.
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 Test & Evaluation Enterprise Guidebook (OUSD R&E, August 2022). Use for DoD test and evaluation (T&E) across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework — the four test communities (contractor testing, developmental DT&E, operational OT&E, live-fire LFT&E); the five operational events (Operational Demonstration, EOA, OA, IOT&E, FOT&E) and the OTRR gate; the T&E Strategy / TEMP and its IDSK, with the upstream documents that feed it and the test plans that decompose it; the T&E organizations and oversight roles (USD(R&E), DOT&E, TRMC, the Service Executives and OTAs, the T&E WIPT, CDT); and pathway-specific T&E for all six acquisition pathways (Urgent Capability, Middle Tier, Major Capability, Software, Defense Business Systems). Statutory anchors include 10 U.S.C. §4171 (IOT&E) and §4172 (LFT&E/FUSL). This is guidance, not policy: it points outward to DoDI 5000.89 and the DoDI 5000-series for binding detail, and is thin on detailed test statistics/design-of-experiments methodology, cost estimating, the Acquisition of Services pathway, and any CUI/CAC-gated companion guides.
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。
How game development works as a process — roles, subtasks, workflows and role descriptions, especially (but not only) for Roblox. Use this skill when it's about the ORGANIZATION of game dev rather than concrete code: Which roles exist (Creative Director, Engineer, Artist, Polish/Audio, Business, QA-Tester, Game Critic)? Who does which subtask? What does a development chain (concept → backend → frontend → polish → test) look like? How do you write a Game Design Document / KONZEPT.md? How do several (AI) agents divide up a game? Also trigger on "plan a new game", "create Game Design Document", "which roles do I need for my game", "development workflow for a game", "who tests the game", "structure a game idea", "Roblox genre/monetization".
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 an engineer's notes, a ticket history or a chat thread into a draft step-by-step runbook with preconditions, stop conditions, numbered steps with checks, verification, rollback and escalation, for the team to validate before use. Commands verbatim, placeholders marked, every gap UNKNOWN; never executes a step or fills a gap from general knowledge. Use when the user asks to "write a runbook from these notes", "turn this resolved ticket into a runbook", "document the steps we ran" or "check this runbook for gaps". Do not use for a business process without commands, use sop-drafter instead; for a knowledge article or known-error record, use knowledge-article-drafter; for the 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。
Pre-tests one message (email, announcement, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or slide) against two to six role personas the user supplies and returns a DRAFT panel report: each persona's likely first reaction, objections, unanswered questions, misreadings and what they would do next, every point tied to the passage that triggers it, plus suggested edits that add no fact the message does not already hold. Use when the user asks to "pre-test this message", "how will the team read this", "run this past the personas", "what objections will this raise", "find the holes before I send" or "check this lands with managers and field staff". Do not use for an in-character review of a proposal or business case by one executive archetype, use the executive-review family (cfo-reviewer, frontline-skeptic-reviewer and siblings) instead; to write the message in the first place, use announcement-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 a proposal, business case, deck, plan or restructuring paper in character as a Chief Human Resources Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, people and organisation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CHRO review", "what would HR say about this", "pressure-test the people impact" or "prepare this for the people committee". Do not use for the employee representatives' own view of a plan, use works-council-reviewer 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 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。
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。