「findings」の検索結果

Curate .unikit/MCP-RECHECK-NOTES.md — the project's log of findings about the configured engine MCP server. Four jobs: re-stamp (the server moved, so every entry is suspect), replay (reproduce a `replay: safe` finding inside a disposable sandbox to see whether it still holds), retire (offer to drop what was fixed or went upstream), and upstream (print a ready diff for the packaged INDEX.md). Use for "audit the MCP notes", "are these findings still true", "recheck the MCP traps", "clean up MCP-RECHECK-NOTES", "the server was updated — revisit the notes". Replaying mutates a live editor, so it starts by telling you how to prepare it — save your scene, open an empty one — and asks once before touching anything. Everything it creates lives under a single UNIKIT_AUDIT_<runid> prefix, is deleted in one action, and the scene is never saved. To record a NEW finding use /unikit-mcp-trap instead.

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 finding about the configured engine MCP server into .unikit/MCP-RECHECK-NOTES.md — the project's log of what has to be re-checked here. Use right after a call reported success while changing nothing, ate an argument, or validated a broken state, e.g. "write this down", "record this MCP finding", "the server lied — note it", "add a recheck note", "trap this". Takes three forms of input: the finding in one line, a path to a plan file (harvests the "## MCP Findings" table of that plan and nothing else), or nothing at all — then it takes findings already in the session first, and offers to scan the tables of plans touched since the last audit. The table only, never the plan body. Writes in the one allowed genre — a check to perform; never a lifted gate, never a named workaround, never a claim about what the server can or cannot do. Makes zero MCP calls and needs no editor. To replay, retire, or upstream existing notes use /unikit-mcp-audit instead.

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。

Autonomous bug-elimination loop. Iteratively invokes /bug-hunt and /implement-batch until findings converge below an operator-specified severity floor. At termination, runs /review-test scoped to the run's new reproducing tests and fixes quality issues above the floor. Auto-approves /bug-hunt and /review-test ticket proposals; pulls the andon cord on contested findings, repeated implementation failure, hard-cap exhaustion, or breaking-change proposals. Optional /refactor finisher.

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。

Autonomous comprehensive refactoring. Three-phase pipeline — Phase 1 /refactor (tactical, loops internally to convergence) → Phase 2 loop of /review-arch + /implement-batch until architectural findings converge below a severity floor (default HIGH+) → Phase 3 /refactor (catches tactical issues introduced by restructuring). Auto-approves /review-arch ticket proposals; pulls the andon cord on contested findings, breaking-change proposals, repeated implementation failure, or Phase-2 hard-cap exhaustion (5 architectural iterations).

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。

White-box security audit. Blue-teamer and lead red-teamer run in parallel isolation for an independent first pass — neither sees the other's output during reconnaissance. A synthesis step categorizes findings into four prescriptive buckets (anchoring-suppressed, convergent, blue-flagged-unverified, divergent), producing a unified target list. Focused red-teamers then deep-dive each target. Iterates when exploit chains are discovered. Heavy and thorough by design. Advisory only — produces findings and proposes tickets; does not implement remediation.

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。

Produces structured U.S. legal audit summaries that distill compliance findings into executive-ready risk prioritization and remediation plans, covering likelihood/impact scoring, consequence analysis, and corrective actions with timelines and owners. Use for legal audits, compliance audits, regulatory audits, compliance gap analyses, risk assessments, audit report summaries, or remediation roadmaps. Trigger keywords: audit summary, compliance findings, audit report, risk prioritization, remediation plan, regulatory exposure, corrective action plan.

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。

Prioritizes rare-disease variants from trio/quad WES/WGS with de novo (DeNovoGear, Triodenovo), compound-heterozygous phasing (WhatsHap), mosaic VAF tiering, phenotype-driven ranking (Exomiser, Phen2Gene, AMELIE), ClinGen gene-disease validity gating, and ACMG SF v3.2 secondary findings reporting. Use when running diagnostic exome / genome pipelines, identifying candidate Mendelian disease genes, screening for incidental findings, or auditing VUS reclassification cycles. The ACMG/AMP classification framework (PVS1 decision tree, Pejaver PP3/BP4 calibration, Tavtigian point system) is in clinical-databases/acmg-classification.

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。

Re-run the analysis pipeline on all runs matching an RQ, reaggregate metrics, and propose findings updates against the fresh data. Trigger when the user says "reanalyze RQ-N", "reanalyse RQ-N", "Runs neu analysieren", or wants to refresh metrics/findings after a pipeline change (analyze-run.sh fix, adapter added, ESLint config).

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。

[Code Quality] Use when you need to combine /why-review + /fix in a recursive loop — each round runs /why-review to find validated findings then /fix to resolve them, then loops again over the CHANGED target until a fresh full /why-review produces zero findings (nothing left to fix).

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。

[Code Quality] Use when you need to combine /changes-review + /fix in a recursive loop — each round runs /changes-review (report-only) to surface validated findings over a fixed diff scope, then /fix to resolve them, then loops again with a FRESH full /changes-review over the CHANGED diff until one complete pass produces zero validated findings (nothing left to fix).

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。

Adversarially probe this monorepo for security flaws at the right depth. Steers the red-team subagent — picks quick/standard/deep from the request, spawns it (fanning out for a wide deep sweep), collates findings into a dated report, and files security/sec:* issues for confirmed high/critical findings. Use when asked to "red-team", "try to hack this", "find security holes", "pentest this package/app", or as the brain behind the CI + daily security runs.

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 auditing UI code for interface-guideline compliance (accessibility, forms, animation, images, performance, UX copy) and/or validating a deployed page against Lighthouse 95+ targets. Produces evidence-based findings (file:line + Lighthouse JSON) and turns confirmed pendencies into Draft SPECs via write-specs. Do NOT use to design/build UI from scratch (use design) or to fix findings inline — fixes go through the SPEC pipeline.

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。

exact-13 staging planを独立評価したいとき、4条件とdigestに束縛したplan-findings.jsonを生成したいときに使う。

生成済み plan を4条件と決定論ゲートで評価したいとき、context:fork で独立評価結果 plan-findings.json を取得したいときに使う。

生成済みプロンプトを C1-C4 と 4 パスで評価したいとき、context:fork で独立評価結果 findings.json を取得したいときに使う。

36章 PKG-002〜008 / PKG-014 sub-check を実行したいとき、plugin package の静的検査結果を findings JSON で得たいときに使う。

Automate AWS GuardDuty threat detection findings processing using EventBridge and Lambda to enable real-time incident response, automatic quarantine of compromised resources, and security notification workflows.

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。

Internal audit support skill aligned with IIA (Institute of Internal Auditors) International Standards. Provides risk-based audit planning, audit program development, workpaper documentation, finding development (Condition/Criteria/Cause/Effect), and Corrective Action Request (CAR) tracking. Use when: planning annual/quarterly audits, creating risk assessment matrices, developing audit programs and test procedures, documenting audit workpapers, writing audit findings and reports, tracking corrective actions and follow-ups, preparing for external audits (SOX, ISO). Triggers: "internal audit", "audit plan", "audit program", "audit workpaper", "audit finding", "risk assessment", "CAR tracking", "corrective action", "IIA Standards", "COSO framework", "監査計画", "監査プログラム", "監査調書", "是正措置", "リスク評価".

Compress review pressure into the right next action instead of more code by default. Classify findings, reject non-liabilities, and choose proof-only vs minimal-fix vs refactor-kernel, preventing one-patch-per-comment churn. Use after a code review — PR comments, reviewer suggestions, or audit findings — and especially when you are about to reflexively patch every comment.

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 internal audit pack from the audit plan: scope as stated, criteria with clauses quoted from the documents provided, document requests per auditee with due dates, open interview questions per process and role, previous findings to follow up and a readiness checklist. Never pre-judges conformity, writes findings or selects the sample; the lead auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the internal audit", "build the audit pack from this plan", "draft the document requests and interview questions" or "get us ready for the supplier audit". Do not use for evidence requests built from a control list, use control-evidence-request-pack instead; to chase actions from earlier audits, use corrective-action-tracker. 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。

Operational guide for WordPress.org submission readiness of NV oOS standalone plugins (nvoos-docs-hub live at 0.5.3; nvoos-content-graph live at 1.0.10 in the re-submission loop; nvoos-design-system next in the pipeline — issue #6811). Covers the 18 wp.org guidelines, the Plugin Check (PCP) gate in CI and Docker, PCP finding triage, the reviewer-reply loop (findings taxonomy from the real 0.4.3 review, related-issue sweep checklist, reply-email template), packaging exclusion tri-sync, readme.txt standards, .wordpress-org listing assets, and the NV oOS Complete checkout-flow disclosure discipline (docs-hub 0.5.3, content-graph). Use when preparing a wp.org submission, responding to a reviewer email, fixing the plugin-check CI job, triaging PCP findings, or capturing listing screenshots.

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。

運用で発見されたレビューパターン (findings / retrospective) を分析し、新 skill への昇格候補 / 既存 skill 更新候補 / 人間判断が必要な項目に分類する

複数の AI / 人間レビュー結果 (review-self / review-external / findings-pool) を統合し、実在性・重大度・対応優先度・merge 可否を検証する。

Use when working with Aws Inspector — aWS Inspector vulnerability management and finding analysis. Covers Inspector v2 coverage, vulnerability findings, finding summaries, scan configurations, suppression rules, and coverage statistics. Use when auditing vulnerability posture, reviewing Inspector findings, checking scan coverage, or analyzing security vulnerabilities across EC2, ECR, and Lambda resources.

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。