347 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites).
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。
Provides AI and machine learning techniques for CTF challenges. Use when attacking ML models, crafting adversarial examples, performing model extraction, prompt injection, membership inference, training data poisoning, fine-tuning manipulation, neural network analysis, LoRA adapter exploitation, LLM jailbreaking, or solving AI-related puzzles.
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。
The rules the reference agents enforce in code for third-party content, writes, grounding, identity, and memory, each with its module, plus two adversarial-eval rules. Load when handling untrusted tool results, guarding a write tool, or scoping what an agent remembers.
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。
SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; its docs-aware mode covers this variant) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening with living documentation. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan, one question at a time, challenging it against your project's existing domain model and glossary (CONTEXT.md), sharpening fuzzy terms, stress-testing with concrete scenarios, cross-referencing code, and updating CONTEXT.md + ADRs inline as decisions crystallise. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-with-docs-codex", "grill me against the docs then have codex review", "stress-test this against our domain model then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes in a project with established terminology/ADRs and wants alignment, documentation, AND a cross-model sanity check. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-with-docs (MIT). NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial changes.
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。
SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; adds a Phase 0 research/recon pass + rebuilt interview) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan or design, one question at a time, recommending an answer for each and exploring the codebase when it can answer itself, until every branch of the decision tree is resolved. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-me-codex", "grill me then have codex review", "grill me and stress-test the plan", "interview me about this plan then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes (auth, schema, concurrency, migrations, payments) and wants both alignment AND a cross-model sanity check before implementation. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-me (MIT). For the docs-aware variant use /grill-with-docs-codex; if you already have a plan and want only the Codex review use /codex-review. NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial changes.
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。
Discipline for the seam between two SDKs (or two sides of one contract) that the same hand writes. The failure mode: "we own both sides" produces dirty contracts no foreign reviewer would accept. The exercise: pretend the other side is FFI, IPC, or a network protocol you cannot rewrite. Spawn an adversarial subagent profiled as the producer's maintainer; negotiate the change as a feature request, not a PR. Companion to $sdk-design. Language-agnostic — applies to a TS package + its consumer, a Rust crate + its WASM binding, two services sharing a wire format, or any other boundary the same author writes both ends of.
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。
AI/ML security playbook. Use when assessing model supply chain attacks (pickle RCE, poisoned weights), adversarial examples, model poisoning, model stealing, data privacy attacks (membership inference, model inversion), and autonomous agent security risks.
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。
End-to-end orchestrated workflow that runs a task the way Fable ran sessions - parallel evidence subagents, one committed plan, surgical execution with an intent gate, adversarial verification agents, honest outcome-first report. Use for non-trivial multi-step tasks when the user says "/fable-loop", "run the fable loop", or "do this the way Fable would". For the rules alone without orchestration, use fable-method; for large multi-phase projects, prefer the GSD workflow and use this inside phases.
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。
Adversarial verification of finished work. Treats any "done" as a set of claims, then re-runs the claimed verifications, diffs what actually changed, detects weakened tests and false completion claims, and delivers an evidence-based verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH CAVEATS / REFUTED). Use after any agent or model claims work is complete - "/fable-judge", "judge this work", "verify what it did", "did that actually work?". Also runs the fable-method trap suite against a skill or model via "/fable-judge suite TARGET".
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。
Verify a WordPress plugin's Abilities API registrations: enumerate abilities, check that callback behavior matches each annotation's claim (the adversarial readonly-but-writes detection), validate permissions and schemas, and validate audit documents produced by wp-abilities-audit.
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。
Fail closed on published draft XQUIC code pull requests before ready-for-review state. Use when asked to pre-review a code PR or move it out of draft; verify current base-to-head code, protocol conformance, validation coverage, adversarial bad cases, hot-path performance, and memory safety in a five-part local report.
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 for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.
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。
Execute work units through the rigorous 4-phase Metaswarm cycle (Implement -> Validate -> Adversarial Review -> Commit) with independent quality gate enforcement.
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。
Adversarial plan review by 3 independent reviewers (Feasibility, Completeness, Scope & Alignment) before presenting to user.
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。
Coordinate external AI tool integration (OpenAI Codex, Google Gemini) for cross-model adversarial review and delegated 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。
Use for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.
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。
Leverage OpenAI Codex/GPT models for autonomous code implementation, code review, and plan review. Triggers: "codex", "use gpt", "gpt-5", "let openai", "full-auto", "adversarial review", "second opinion review", "用codex", "让gpt实现", "对抗式审查", "让codex审查计划", "第二意见". Use this skill whenever the user wants to delegate coding tasks to OpenAI models, run code or plan reviews via codex, get a second-opinion review from a different model, or execute tasks in a sandboxed environment.
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。
针对方案或设计的高强度追问式面试（adversarial design review / grill session），暴露假设漏洞与缺失约束，过程中同步维护领域模型（术语表和 ADR）。手动调用 /grill-me。
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。
Adversarial visual-layout audit of a Quarto `.qmd` or Beamer `.tex` deck. Flags overflow, font inconsistency, box fatigue, spacing, and alignment issues. Use when user says "visual audit", "check the layout", "does this overflow?", "look for visual issues", "audit the slides", or after reworking a deck's appearance. Does NOT check writing or pedagogy — pair with `/proofread` or `/pedagogy-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。
Adversarial Quarto-vs-Beamer parity QA. A critic agent compares the Quarto HTML render to the Beamer PDF benchmark for content/visual parity; a fixer agent applies fixes; loops until APPROVED or two consecutive rounds turn up nothing new (fallback cap 5 rounds). Use when user says "qa the quarto", "check parity", "does the html match the pdf?", "quarto matches beamer?", or after a translate-to-quarto run. Requires both the `.qmd` rendered and a `.pdf` benchmark.
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 adversarial audit of a theory, proof, math/econ paper, codebase, or set of claims — decompose into components, fan out independent skeptics that must return CONCRETE defects, adjudicate every finding with a separate judge, fix all confirmed defects, then re-verify. Use when correctness must be bulletproof and single-pass or round-by-round review is too slow and too shallow. Invoke for "audit this rigorously", "find ALL the bugs/gaps", "make this rock solid", "converge faster on correctness".
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 manuscript review with three modes: single-pass (default), --adversarial critic-fixer loop, and --peer [journal] simulated peer-review pipeline (editor + 2 dispositioned referees + editorial decision, calibrated to a target journal). R&R continuation via --peer --r2/--r3; hostile-editor stress test via --peer --stress; reviewer-disposition variance reporting via --peer --variance N. Auto-invokes /review-r + /audit-reproducibility on referenced scripts unless --no-cross-artifact.
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。
Adversarial 5-7 question challenge to a deck's pedagogical choices — ordering, prerequisites, cognitive load, motivation. Use when user says "devil's advocate", "poke holes in this deck", "push back on my slides", "stress-test the design", "what would a skeptical student ask?". Read-only; surfaces questions to force rethinking. Lighter than `/pedagogy-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。
Mechanize Pattern 15 — the seven-pass adversarial review protocol for academic manuscripts. Spawns 7 fresh-context subagents in parallel (abstract, intro, methods, results, robustness, prose, citations), then synthesizes a prioritized revision checklist. Use for submission-ready or R&R-stage papers where single-pass review isn't enough.
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。