「decision」の検索結果

/cs:post-mortem <decision> — Honest retrospective on an executed decision, scored against original assumptions and dissent. Closes the strategic sprint loop. Use when a decision hits its 90-day review checkpoint or its kill criteria trigger — e.g. scoring last quarter's pricing change against its pre-committed success metrics.

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。

Technical leadership guidance for engineering teams, architecture decisions, and technology strategy. Use when assessing technical debt, scaling engineering teams, evaluating technologies, making architecture decisions, establishing engineering metrics, or when user mentions CTO, tech debt, technical debt, team scaling, architecture decisions, technology evaluation, engineering metrics, DORA metrics, or technology strategy.

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。

C-suite orchestration layer. Routes founder questions to the right advisor role(s), triggers multi-role board meetings for complex decisions, synthesizes outputs, and tracks decisions. Every C-suite interaction starts here. Loads company context automatically. Use when a founder question needs routing to the right advisor — e.g. 'should we raise now or cut burn?' — or when a multi-domain decision needs a board meeting convened.

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。

当用户在重大选择上纠结（换工作/买房/搬城/合伙/结婚）、列了利弊表还是拿不定主意时调用。 核心理念: 无法决定就答否; 三个重大决定(住哪/和谁/做什么)值得花一两年; 两个均等选择选短期更痛苦的路。 不适用于: 日常琐碎选择（晚饭吃什么）、信息查询。 Triggers: 纠结/拿不定主意/要不要/该不该/利弊/decision/hesitate/should I

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 whether a design is SOUND — solving the right problem, derived from its stated goals and constraints — and emits ranked, evidence-backed findings, not edits. Read when asked to 'review this design', 'is this design sound', 'pressure-test this proposal', 'do a design review', 'does this solve the right problem', 'poke holes in this spec', 'should we build this', or to critique a proposal / spec / ADR / architecture or product decision. Do NOT read when the user wants to AUTHOR one of these — routing a new proposal is frame-a-proposal, a spec is write-a-spec, a decision record is record-a-decision, a postmortem is write-a-postmortem. Do NOT read for code review of a diff, or to fact-check individual claims (that is a correctness pass, a different job).

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。

Scope a feature end to end and write an implementation spec under specs/ from an accepted proposal — current-system mapping, goals/non-goals, a Decision Log for one-way-door choices, a live Open Questions backlog, and a real migration + test plan. Read when asked to write a spec, scope this feature, turn this proposal into a spec, plan the implementation, or break this into tasks. Do NOT fire on frame a proposal or write the PRD (sibling frame-a-proposal — a PRD frames a change before it is accepted; this skill starts once one is), record a decision or write the ADR (record-a-decision), write a postmortem (write-a-postmortem), or review this design (review-a-design) — those are separate skills. Complements the platform open-knowledge skill; does not replace it.

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 professional clinical decision support (CDS) documents for pharmaceutical and clinical research settings, including patient cohort analyses (biomarker-stratified with outcomes) and treatment recommendation reports (evidence-based guidelines with decision algorithms). Supports GRADE evidence grading, statistical analysis (hazard ratios, survival curves, waterfall plots), biomarker integration, and regulatory compliance. Outputs publication-ready LaTeX/PDF format optimized for drug development, clinical research, and evidence synthesis.

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。

Maintain a structured planning document tree made of roadmap/status files, implementation status or handoff TODO files, topic notes, decision records, open questions, ideas/inspiration pools, and repository/file-structure hygiene plans. Use when Codex needs to create, reorganize, audit, or update a multi-file plan, design-doc folder, roadmap tree, active implementation-status file, repo cleanup/filesystem plan, ADR/decision log, ideas inbox, or linked planning knowledge base; reconcile Done/In Progress/Next state; resume work from TODO/handoff state; move resolved questions into decisions; promote ideas into formal plan artifacts; or keep plan documents and file-structure planning internally consistent without making this project-specific.

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。

[omh] Business question on market, competitors, pricing: business research brief - turns a market, competitor, pricing, or customer question into a structured evidence-vs-inference brief; for raw link gathering use ulw-research, and for ongoing multi-role research use research-department. Use when the user says: research-brief, business-research, business research, research brief, decision brief, pricing decision brief, decision-ready brief, source-backed business research.

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。

[omh] Team or business decision between options: tradeoffs, a recommendation, and a decision note you can act on. Use when the user says: strategy-brief, strategy brief, strategy memo, product strategy, strategic options, decision note, leadership strategy, next strategy.

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 any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict. Based on Karpathy's LLM Council methodology. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'council this', 'run the council', 'war room this', 'pressure-test this', 'stress-test this', 'debate this'. STRONG TRIGGERS (use when combined with a real decision or tradeoff): 'should I X or Y', 'which option', 'what would you do', 'is this the right move', 'validate this', 'get multiple perspectives', 'I can't decide', 'I'm torn between'. Do NOT trigger on simple yes/no questions, factual lookups, or casual 'should I' without a meaningful tradeoff (e.g. 'should I use markdown' is not a council question). DO trigger when the user presents a genuine decision with stakes, multiple options, and context that suggests they want it pressure-tested from multiple 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。

Format and structurally validate local treatment-plan documentation after clinical decisions have already been supplied and verified by authorized licensed professionals. Use for source traceability, clinician-authored intervention records, goals and checkpoints, shared-decision records, reconciliation handoffs, and release gates—not for clinical decision-making.

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。

Guided journey from an app idea to a deliberate architecture: boundaries, domain model, data decisions, and resilience, making only the expensive-to-reverse decisions and deferring the rest. Orchestrates eight skills phase by phase - clean-architecture, domain-driven-design, system-design, ddia-systems, software-design-philosophy, release-it, pragmatic-programmer, 37signals-way - asking the user questions at every decision point and recording results in the project docs/ folder (ARCHITECTURE.md, DESIGN-CODE-ARCHITECTURE-PLAN.md) so the journey resumes across sessions. Use when the user wants to design a new app's architecture, choose boundaries and a domain model, decide monolith versus microservices, or says 'how should I structure this app'. If a codebase already exists, use remove-technical-debt (aged), improve-code-quality (fresh prototype), or architecture-optimization (slow but working); if unvalidated, run create-business or create-app first. For one framework in isolation, invoke that skill directly.

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。

Pressure-tests a decision, plan, or idea before it is committed to — surfacing the assumption it rests on, the case against it, and what would have to be true for it to work. Use this when weighing options, when a plan needs challenging before commitment, when you have already decided and want a genuine gut check, when processing meeting notes into decisions, or when competing initiatives need ranking. Distinct from `chief-executive`, which owns direction; this one interrogates a specific decision.

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 professional clinical decision support (CDS) documents for pharmaceutical and clinical research settings, including patient cohort analyses (biomarker-stratified with outcomes) and treatment recommendation reports (evidence-based guidelines with decision algorithms). ...

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 evaluating the clinical utility of a binary prediction model from a single clinical CSV file by fitting a logistic decision-curve model, plotting decision and clinical-impact curves, and exporting summary outputs. NOT for: survival calibration, ROC-only discrimination analysis, nomogram construction, or time-to-event outcomes.

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。

Never get auto-renewed into another year again — the contract inventory with the dates that matter (notice deadlines, not renewal dates), the calendar system with decision-time buffers, and the renewal-decision ritual that renegotiates instead of rubber-stamping. Use when asked track our contracts and renewals, we got auto-renewed again, when do we have to decide on this vendor, or set up renewal management. Produces the inventory with notice-deadline math, the alert system, the renewal-decision checklist, and the negotiation-window playbook.

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。

Present a design to a client so they can make a decision rather than react to a picture — the brief restated, the moves explained against it, the options with their trade-offs, and a specific decision requested. Use when asked to present a design to a client, prepare a design review meeting, present concept options, or when a client keeps changing their mind after sign-off. Produces the presentation structure, the brief-to-design traceability, the options with honest trade-offs, the cost and programme position, and the decision record that makes sign-off stick.

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。

Record a decision, document existing code, or file a supplied research material. Modes: document decision (ADR, RFC, or rule), document code (spec, doc, guide, or scenario for existing behavior), document research (only when a finished report or one external material is already in hand). Use for 'we decided', 'record this decision', 'document why we chose X', 'make it our standard', 'draft an RFC', 'should we switch to Y' proposals, 'resolve the RFC', 'we accepted the proposal', 'document the auth module', 'capture how the payment system works', reference material, how-to instructions, or a user flow with examples over an existing spec. Name the type inside the subject to skip the type question. Planning a feature or an intended user journey → /archcore:plan. Checking docs against code or docs health → /archcore: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。

Capture architectural decisions made during Claude Code sessions as structured ADRs. Auto-detects decision moments, records context, alternatives considered, and rationale. Maintains an ADR log so future developers understand why the codebase is shaped the way 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。

Record a decision, document existing code, or file a supplied research material. Modes: document decision (ADR, RFC, or rule), document code (spec, doc, guide, or scenario for existing behavior), document research (only when a finished report or one external material is already in hand). Use for 'we decided', 'record this decision', 'document why we chose X', 'make it our standard', 'draft an RFC', 'should we switch to Y' proposals, 'resolve the RFC', 'we accepted the proposal', 'document the auth module', 'capture how the payment system works', reference material, how-to instructions, or a user flow with examples over an existing spec. Name any document type inside the subject — journey, prd, idea, or cpat included — to get exactly that type. Planning a feature or an unnamed intended user journey → /archcore:plan. Checking docs against code or docs health → /archcore: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。

INVOKE THIS SKILL when routing a LangGraph agent with a decision model (TypeSafe Jev, SemIf) instead of an LLM, or when auditing an existing agent for LLM calls that only produce a routing decision. Covers langchain-typesafe Noul/Choice/Score, reading answers correctly, threshold design, and LangSmith Gateway wiring.

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。

Build or review source-backed descriptive, diagnostic, predictive, and prescriptive analysis for consequential decisions. Use when an agent must profile and safely prepare uploaded data, turn a real dataset or research question into a reproducible study, investigate drivers without overstating causality, validate a model, compare feasible actions under dependent uncertainty and tail risk, trace every parameter to evidence and approval, or produce an answer-first analytical report across health, business, finance, policy, engineering, operations, behavioral science, AI, or planning.

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。

Collecting and synthesizing user feedback across channels (support tickets, NPS, in-app feedback, sales calls, social mentions, customer councils) into a continuous signal that informs product decisions. The triage discipline that distinguishes loudest-voice (whoever complains most wins) from averaged-noise (every signal weighted equally) from triaged-synthesis (signal weighted by source quality, frequency, and decision relevance). Triggers on user feedback, customer feedback aggregation, NPS, support ticket analysis, customer councils, feedback synthesis, voice of customer, feedback triage, in-app feedback. Also triggers when feedback channels overflow with volume that does not produce decisions, when the loudest-voice problem is steering roadmap, or when continuous feedback streams need synthesis discipline.

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。