3,379 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Give advisory feedback on a plan, design or code change. Use when: asked for an opinion or a look-over, even informally. Not for acceptance; use Validate.
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。
Investigate AI traces, observations, exceptions, latency, sessions, prompts, datasets, annotation queues, and scores through Langfuse MCP. Use when the request names Langfuse or asks to diagnose recorded AI 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。
Diagnosis before prescription: reproduce, hypothesize, isolate, fix root cause, add a regression test; refactor mode maps deps, coupling and blast radius. Triggers: bug, error, fix, broken, not working, crashed, stack trace, exception, refactor, restructure, coupling, dependency map.
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, in free text; no first word is a mode. 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, a repeated agent procedure, a user flow with examples over an existing spec, or a finished report or one external material already in hand. Name any document type inside the subject — journey, prd, idea, or cpat included — to get exactly that type. Planning a feature, an investigation not yet done, or an intended user journey the request asks to plan ('plan the onboarding 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。
Plan future work, investigate before building, research a topic, or compare the alternatives for a choice. Takes optional free text. The skill reads the request, open drafts, accepted canon, branch, and code, then creates only the documents a later reader needs — none for a small fix. Use for 'plan the X redesign', 'create a roadmap', 'plan a new feature', 'plan the onboarding journey', 'investigate X before we plan', 'compare the alternatives for Y', 'REST or a queue? two teams disagree', 'I need market research before we plan', 'we are regulated — trace the requirements'. With no arguments it resumes an open planning draft or offers what to plan next. Not for recording a decision or documenting existing code — use /archcore:document. Not for checking docs against code — use /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。
Refine an existing Agiflow task into an unambiguous, testable specification without expanding its intended outcome. Use when a task is vague, lacks acceptance criteria, has unclear scope or dependencies, or is not ready for backlog grooming.
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 a single Todo task through In Progress to Review, meeting every acceptance criterion with tests and vibe-lint checks. Refuses Planning-status tasks. Invoked as /agiflow:run-task <task>. Uses get_task, update_task, create_task_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。
Operate BurpSuite MCP Bridge for professional, authorized web testing. Use when Codex needs to inspect Burp live/history/logger/selection traffic, prioritize one target, retrieve a decisive request/response, intercept and edit a request or response before forwarding, replay one controlled mutation, manage temporary rewrite rules, import BChecks/Bambdas, export evidence, or diagnose the Windows Burp to WSL MCP connection.
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: verify each acceptance criterion of a completed task/work unit, run quality checks, and create follow-up tasks for gaps. Use before merging or to audit delivered work. Invoked as /agiflow:review-work <work-unit-or-task>. Uses get_work_unit, get_task, update_task, create_task, create_task_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。
Add a new platform writer module in src/writers/ that generates and writes agent config files for a supported platform. Each writer exports a function that accepts a config interface, creates directories (rules/, skills/, mcp configs), writes files with proper formatting and frontmatter, and returns string[] of written file paths. Use when adding platform support for a new agent, integrating a new code AI tool, or extending caliber to support new targets. Do NOT use for modifying existing writers, refactoring scoring logic, or changing how writers are invoked.
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 one task through the V-model verification loop: CP-2 plan → CP-3 build → CP-3v component verify → CP-4 integration verify (full lane) → CP-5 acceptance. The worker never grades its own homework; evidence rows trace back to AC-n. Opt-in: invoke with /closed-loop or by asking for the closed loop, proper verification, or an evidence trail. Ordinary work does not run this.
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 a large, multi-session goal (e.g. shipping a whole side product) through the full V-model closed loop, one phase at a time, with cross-session state and a final north-star acceptance gate. Ultragoals never downgrade the lane: every phase runs CP-1→CP-6 with adversarial verification. Opt-in: invoke with /ultragoal or by calling something a long-running goal. Ordinary work does not run this.
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 generated or changed WordPress code — plugins, themes, and blocks — before it ships. Best used reactively after an agent writes, edits, or reviews code touching WordPress APIs: add_action/add_filter, shortcodes, meta boxes, AJAX handlers, REST routes, WP_Query or $wpdb, widgets, or WP-CLI commands. Use on 'review this plugin', 'is this safe to ship', 'make this translatable', 'speed up this query', or after tasks like 'write a plugin' or 'add an endpoint/shortcode/meta box'. Enforces escaping and sanitization, nonces plus capability checks, prepared database queries, core-API-first development, translation-ready strings, and query/caching discipline. DO NOT USE for WooCommerce-specific order, product, or checkout logic (use woo-guard), non-WordPress PHP, generic code quality review (use clean-code-guard), test code review (use test-guard), server or hosting configuration, or conceptual WordPress questions.
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 generated or changed production code before it ships, using Clean Code, SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, and LLM-specific failure-mode checks in any programming language. Best used reactively after an agent writes, edits, refactors, or fixes code, before presenting, committing, or merging the result. Use when the user asks "review this PR", "is this safe to merge?", "make this cleaner", "audit this code", "refactor this", "fix this bug", or after a coding agent produced implementation code. Can also guide writing when explicitly invoked before a risky edit. Invoke it on your own initiative the moment you finish writing, editing, or refactoring non-trivial production code, before presenting or committing — don't wait to be asked. DO NOT USE for factual/conceptual questions, CI/tooling config, git workflow, running/debugging tests, pure architecture discussion, prose writing, data analysis, or test-code review (use test-guard).
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 drafting or polishing an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript so it reads across all four fields, follows AA house style (Chicago author-date; free-format submission accepted), fits the section word caps (Research Articles ≤ 8,000 words; abstract 200 words), and uses inclusive, care-ful language. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
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 packaging AISTATS code, data, proofs, simulation scripts, notebooks, random seeds, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or public post-acceptance artifacts, even when there is no separate artifact badge. Covers what statistically minded AISTATS reviewers inspect first and how to make Monte Carlo studies turnkey.
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 targeting New Phytologist or deciding whether a plant-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the integrative conceptual-advance and whole-plant/ecosystem-scale bar, evidence and data-deposition expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
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 preparing accepted AISTATS papers for PMLR camera-ready submission, covering the 9-page final body, two-column layout reflow, author de-anonymization, proceedings forms, metadata, final appendix handling, registration, in-person presentation obligations, and public artifact release.
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 running the final pre-submission preflight for American Anthropologist (AA) via the Research Exchange platform — section selection, anonymization, word/abstract caps, Chicago author-date (free-format accepted), DOIs, ORCID, ethics statement, and figure permissions/alt text. Final checks; it does not draft content.
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 the model setup, equilibrium concept, or proof architecture is the bottleneck for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript — the central skill for a theory-first paper. Builds the model to the AEJ: Micro bar (clean, general, well-motivated result); it does not check whether your theorem is correct.
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 deciding which aeri-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing work on a short-format manuscript from topic selection through the conditional-accept response for an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized skills.
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 calibrating expectations for the fast, decisive American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) review process — conditional-accept-or-reject decisions, the single-round model, and pre-empting the objections a short paper cannot afford. Explains the process and stress-tests the paper; it does not write the response letter (see aeri-rebuttal).
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 building figures and tables for an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript so exhibits communicate interactions, dynamics, trade-offs, and model performance clearly. AgSy is a systems journal, so the best exhibits show trade-off frontiers, observed-vs-simulated fit, resource flows, and conceptual system diagrams — not just a bar chart of one treatment. Designs exhibits; it does not run the analysis.
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 a model — a full theory paper's argument or the structural/conceptual scaffolding behind an empirical AER: Insights short-format manuscript — needs to be made minimal, so it carries the single insight in a few pages. Keeps only what the insight requires; it does not develop a general framework.
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。