「before」の検索結果

Forces the laziest solution that actually works, simplest, shortest, most minimal. Channels a senior dev who has seen everything: question whether the task needs to exist at all (YAGNI), reach for the standard library before custom code, native platform features before dependencies, one line before fifty. Supports intensity levels: lite, full (default), ultra. Use whenever the user says "ponytail", "be lazy", "lazy mode", "simplest solution", "minimal solution", "yagni", "do less", or "shortest path", and whenever they complain about over-engineering, bloat, boilerplate, or unnecessary dependencies.

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。

Classify the information-need of a query and dispatch it to the appropriate retrieval or reasoning strategy. Use before read-side memory access, before multi-strategy retrieval, or any time you'd otherwise default to "one retriever for everything". Returns a strategy label, a token budget, and a retrieval depth so downstream handlers can be specialised. Backed by Pre-Route (arxiv 2605.10235v2) and MemFlow (arxiv 2605.03312v1), which together show LLMs possess latent routing ability elicitable via a structured prompt — and that externalising the routing decision improves small-model performance by ~2x. Triggers: "route this", "what strategy", "before retrieving", "intent classification", or any query whose ideal handling depends on what KIND of question it is.

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。

You MUST use this before any creative work or multi-step task. Explores intent, requirements, and design before implementation. Then documents the plan before coding.

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。

Plan the UX and UI for a feature before writing code. Run a structured discovery interview, then produce a design brief (.design-context.md) that guides implementation. Establishes design direction, constraints, and strategy before any code is written. Triggers on plan the design, design brief, shape the UX, before we build, design discovery.

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。

Perform capacity planning using historical metrics and growth models. Use predict_linear for forecasting, identify resource constraints, calculate headroom, and recommend scaling actions before saturation. Use before seasonal traffic spikes or product launches, during quarterly capacity reviews, when resource utilization trends upward, or before budget planning cycles.

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 unconstrained creative exploration — deliberately dropping structure to let associations form freely. The one skill that inverts the standard procedure format: instead of inputs, steps, and validation, dream opens space for emergence without evaluation. Use before design work, before naming things, before choosing between approaches, or anywhere that premature structure kills the best option.

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。

Before any material decision — code chunk, plan, strategy, design, scope cut, push to GitHub — convene a war-room. The session driver takes the CEO seat: frame the tradeoff, summon specialist seats from whatever agent roster the user has built, dispatch a cross-family voice via `ato dispatch` so priors actually disagree, decide. A failure-mode filter (wrong assumptions / overcomplexity / orthogonal edits / imperative-over-declarative — Karpathy's four are one good default, swap in your own) runs on every dispatch. Place in the v2.16 stack: war-rooms DECIDE before code starts; `ato-mission` EXECUTES the work between decisions (multi-step, goal-driven, persisted across days); `ato-review` VERIFIES the resulting commits. Use a war-room for the design verdict, hand the verdict to a Mission, review the merged result. Fires before: sending a code draft to the user as final, opening a PR, pushing to a remote-tracking branch, committing >50 LOC of behavior change, or delivering a plan or strategic recommendation as the final answer.

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。

Before committing any non-trivial change, dispatch the diff to a reviewer runtime via ATO (`ato dispatch <reviewer> --session <id>`), parse the numbered/severity-tagged findings, apply or defer each one with a recorded justification, then commit. Fights the "build passes therefore ship it" failure mode — what Garry Tan calls the AI agent complexity ratchet. Place in the v2.16 stack: this skill is the LAST gate. `ato-warroom` decides the design; `ato-mission` runs the multi-step work and produces the diff; `ato-review` checks the diff before commit. When the review is part of a Mission, dispatch the review with `--require-tools read_file,grep,git_diff,git_log` so the reviewer can walk the source itself instead of reasoning from a paraphrase (PR-1.5 tool surface). Receipts land in `execution_logs` and the Mission narrative. Fires automatically before commits touching public surface (CLI subcommands, Tauri commands, MCP tools, schema migrations, security boundaries) or whenever a diff exceeds ~50 LOC of behavior change.

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 receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement, requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims. Essential for subagent-driven development, pull requests, and preventing false completion claims.

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。

Full validation gate before committing — quality checks, tests, coverage, security scan, changelog, and companion review. Use right before a commit to verify code is ready. Trigger on "pre-commit", "validate before commit", "ready to commit", "run all checks".

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。

Prove a UI or generation feature actually works before asking a human to look at it. Covers A/B-ing an imported design against its source render, driving controls headlessly so a dead button cannot ship, proving the generator really spawns, and launching the real host (VCV Rack, a DAW). Use before any "take a look" on imported UI, plugin shells, or prompt-to-artifact pipelines.

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 measurement surface for ALL Pulp DSP and audio-pipeline work — read it BEFORE writing or gating DSP, not only when something already sounds wrong. Covers the C++ harness (signal generators, metrics, assertions, RenderScenario, contracts), the offline Audio Doctor (magnitude/frequency response, THD/THD+N, phase/group delay), and their Python sibling the Audio Quality Lab (tools/audio/quality-lab — null residual + alignment, LTAS log-spectral distance, spectral flux/centroid, HNR, Theil-Sen drift slope, Kaiser-sinc resampling, license-guarded corpus, regression-net ratchet). TRIGGER on AUTHORING work — "build/design an oscillator/filter/synth/effect", "add a DSP module", "what should the acceptance gate be", "how do I measure aliasing / anti-aliasing / alias floor", "null against a reference", "is this DSP correct", "choose a tolerance", "golden/regression corpus for audio", "measure drift or jitter", "A/B two renders" — AND on DEBUGGING work — "is there sound / no audio / I hear nothing", "does this filter/compressor/synth/delay produce the right signal", "prove the DSP / prove the contract", "measure the frequency response", "what's the THD / is it distorting", "what's the group delay / phase response / measured latency", "magnitude response curve", "render a test tone and assert", "audio regression", "64-frame works but 128 is silent", "sample-rate change pitch-shifted it", "describe what's in this buffer", "audio doctor", "compare before/after a DSP refactor". Reach for this BEFORE hand-rolling any FFT, null test, alias measurement, pitch tracker, or golden-render script — most of it already exists in one of the two lanes. Test/tool layer over HeadlessHost — deterministic, no audio device, no speakers. Off the realtime thread entirely.

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。

Fresh verification gate before claiming done, fixed, passing, ready, or before commit/PR. Evidence before claims, always.

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-commit code quality review for Unity C# code. Checks against Rules, CODING_STANDARDS.md, NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, and GDD Gherkin test coverage. Use when code has been written and tests are passing but before committing. Runs automatically at Step 8.5 of /uw-cmd-implement-feature. Triggers on "review this code", "check my implementation", "pre-commit review", "code review", "check before commit", "is this ready to commit", "review my changes", or any request to validate code quality before committing.

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。

Product marketing and go-to-market strategy for B2B SaaS launches and positioning. Use this skill when planning a product launch, developing positioning and messaging, analyzing competitive landscape, building customer advocacy programs, designing a customer referral program (who may accept the reward, how the introduction is made), designing a win/loss interview program, working out why we lose deals, designing GTM strategy, creating category positioning, planning analyst briefings, or deciding which country to expand into and how far to localize. Also use it for an early-stage startup where the founder is still doing the selling — running founder-led sales, setting up a design-partner program, judging whether you have product-market fit, deciding what not to do yet, deciding when to hire the first AE or first marketer, and moving upmarket to larger buyers. Also use it when your company has just acquired another (or is about to), to plan the marketing integration: what you may and may not do between signing and close, the first letter to the acquired customers, whether to keep, endorse, fold in or retire the acquired brand, merging the two marketing databases without mailing people who opted out, when to start cross-selling, and announcing a product sunset. Also use it to design a demand-generation campaign and the channel plan it runs on: one campaign with one job, the offer for buyers who are and are not in market, what each channel is for, the kill and scale rules set before launch, the follow-up sales agrees to, the yearly calendar of always-on programs and tentpole campaigns, and which channels to keep, test or stop. Also use it for brand marketing and demand creation — how much to spend on brand versus performance, what to measure when a brand campaign produces no conversion event, and how to answer "we cannot attribute it". Also triggers on: founder-led sales, founder-led GTM, design partners, design partner agreement, first customers, first 10 customers, do we have product-market fit, PMF, Sean Ellis test, very disappointed survey, pre-seed, seed stage, when to hire our first AE, first sales hire, first marketing hire, moving upmarket, going upmarket, enterprise readiness, first enterprise deal, what do enterprise buyers need before they sign, positioning, product launch, beta program, early access program, design partners, private preview, public preview, general availability, GA launch, when can we call it GA, can sales sell a beta feature, selling the roadmap, launch tier, competitive intelligence, messaging, customer advocacy, win/loss analysis, win/loss interviews, why we lose deals, closed-lost analysis, loss reason, close-reason field, competitive displacement, displace an incumbent, rip and replace, competitive takeout, switch from a competitor, win deals from a competitor, incumbent contract, renewal window, auto-renewal notice period, switching costs, EU Data Act, cloud switching rights, why do we lose to no decision, GTM, category design, ideal customer profile, ICP, what is our real ICP, who actually buys from us, refresh our ICP from closed-won deals, ICP refresh before planning, analyst briefing, G2 review, international expansion, market entry, expand into Europe, which country should we launch in next, localization, translate our site, in-country go-to-market, regional GTM, is cold email legal in Germany, brand marketing, brand awareness, brand vs performance, brand versus demand gen, demand creation, demand capture, 95-5 rule, out of market buyers, category entry points, distinctive brand assets, mental availability, brand tracking, brand health, brand lift, share of search, how do we measure brand, justify brand spend, brand budget. Also triggers on public-sector marketing: sell to government, government marketing, public sector go-to-market, federal marketing, state and local government, SLED, FedRAMP, FedRAMP marketing claims, can we say FedRAMP ready, GovRAMP, StateRAMP, VPAT, accessibility confor

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。

Quality gate for product specifications before stakeholder review. Use this skill when: - A spec draft is ready and you want to validate it before sending to Engineering, Design, and QA - You want to check a spec against your template's completeness rules - You need to catch vague language, missing sections, or gaps before review - You want a pass/fail scorecard with specific fix suggestions

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。

Explore and debate solutions before writing code. Use when the user poses a design question, asks "how should I approach X", wants to think through options before committing, or says anything like "let's brainstorm", "what's the best way to...", "I'm not sure how to tackle this", or "should I use X or Y". Always runs before /ck:plan for novel or ambiguous features. No code is written — only: explore → clarify → spec → 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。

Always use this skill before claiming any work is done, fixed, passing, or complete — even if it seems obvious. Also use when receiving code review feedback from any source (human or automated), when finishing a task or major feature, before committing or creating a PR, or when about to express satisfaction with work. Covers three practices: receiving feedback with technical rigor (no performative agreement), triggering code review via /code-review command or cook/fix pipelines, and verification gates (run the command, read the output, then make the claim). Never skip — the cost of false completion claims is higher than the cost of verifying. References: code-review-reception.md, requesting-code-review.md, verification-before-completion.md.

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。

Explore and debate solutions before writing code. Use when the user poses a design question, asks "how should I approach X", wants to think through options before committing, or says anything like "let's brainstorm", "what's the best way to...", "I'm not sure how to tackle this", or "should I use X or Y". Always runs before /ck:plan for novel or ambiguous features. No code is written — only: explore → clarify → spec → 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。

Cross-tool decision matrix for field-update automation in Salesforce — Before-Save Flow vs After-Save Flow vs Apex Trigger vs the deprecated Workflow Rule + Field Update. Covers the recursion / re-entrancy rules, governor cost per pattern (Before-Save flow is governor-free for the same record), the order-of-execution slot each tool occupies, and the Workflow-Rule-to-Flow migration playbook for field-update actions. NOT for the full record-save order of execution — use apex/order-of-execution-deep-dive. NOT for building the record-triggered Flow once the tool is chosen — use flow/record-triggered-flow-patterns. Trigger keywords: WorkflowFieldUpdate, reevaluateOnChange, onCreateOrTriggeringUpdate, doesRequireRecordChangedToMeetCriteria, failedMigrationToolVersion, Migrate to Flow, workflow-meta.xml, field update deprecated, double writer, second trigger pass.

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。

One-command pre-execution review pipeline. Runs scope review → architecture review → security review → design review (auto-detects which apply) before executing any workflow. Surfaces only taste decisions for user approval. Auto-fixes obvious issues. Use before executing multi-step workflows, deploying, or when user says "review this plan", "check before running", "pre-flight", or "is this ready?". Runs CEO → eng → security automatically with encoded decision principles.

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。

Prompt-injection and data-exfiltration screening for untrusted text. Use before summarizing web/email/social content, before replying, and especially before writing anything to memory. Provides a safe memory append workflow (scan → lint → accept or quarantine).

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。

Security launch audit for a public web app BEFORE you ship or hand it to a client — "vibe coders are getting sued", systematized. An executable pipeline: classify (static / full-stack / AI) → run sections (secrets+supply-chain, DB, auth, infra+headers, legal, LLM/injection) orchestrating deterministic tools + manual checks → GO/NO-GO report. Adapted from Prajwal Tomar's playbook, extended with prompt-injection / supply-chain / secret-history / dependency-CVE layers. NOT the same as pre-push (that = clean push; this = is the product itself safe to launch). Triggers — "security checklist for the site", "audit before launch", "is the site safe", "check before handing to client".

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。

Mandatory 3-phase explore-reason-act workflow before code modification. Enforces read-before-write, root cause hypothesis formulation, minimal change application. Triggered by "explore" ("탐색"), "reason" ("추론"), "read before write", "root cause" ("근본 원인") keywords.

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。