「case」の検索結果

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-reviewer. 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-reviewer. 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Business Officer archetype, covering commercial model, partnerships, deal structure, market positioning, strategic fit and opportunity cost, and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, commercial risks and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CBO review", "pressure-test this partnership", "check the deal structure" or "what would a commercial executive say about this". Do not use for pipeline, quota, sales-motion or forecast reviews, use cro-reviewer instead. 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。

Turns one long support ticket thread (helpdesk history, email chain, chat transcript, call notes) into a one-page DRAFT escalation summary: the customer's ask in their own words, account context as stated, a dated history, what was tried and the stated result of each attempt, the current state, and what is needed from whom by when, every line referenced to a message and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "escalate this ticket", "summarise this thread for tier two", "write the hand-over for this case", "what has been tried so far", "brief engineering on this customer issue" or "prepare the escalation note". Do not use for a batch of tickets, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for the review after an outage, use incident-postmortem-drafter. 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-reviewer instead. 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。

Checks an extracted PFD register as a process model and returns findings and unknowns only: connectivity closure, stream numbering, presence of design conditions, equipment duty text, phase and service labels, package and off-sheet scope, boundaries, operating cases, and agreement between the drawing and attached process documents, then holds at gate G2. Creates no design values. Use when the user asks to "check the process model", "verify connectivity" or "is the PFD ready for enrichment" after gate G1 and before enrichment. Do not use for extraction from the drawing, use pfd-intake-and-extraction instead; do not use to propose lines or instruments, use piping-enrichment. 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。

Dual-layer PR review tool (Raven's Verdict). Runs adversarial cynical review and edge case hunter in parallel, merges and deduplicates findings into professional engineering output. Use when user asks to 'review a PR' and provides a PR url or id.

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。

ユースケース一覧の新規作成・更新・レビューを支援する。AI駆動開発成果物フローのビジネス要求(D1)に位置する成果物で、ユーザーストーリー一覧・ドメイン要求仕様書群を上流とし、**1 オペレーション(操作。ドメイン要求仕様書の業務状態遷移における 1 遷移)= 1 UC = 1 シーケンス図** の単位に分割した一覧。1 UC 1 行のフラット表で章分割せず、ID は通し連番(`UC-1`, `UC-2`, …)。**後続の D2 システム要件・D3 システム設計工程における最重要成果物であるシーケンス図の分割単位** となるため、各 UC は 1 本のシーケンス図に無理なく収まるオペレーション粒度(例: 設計書作成=「商品・特約選択」「保険料試算」「意向整合検証」「プラン比較提示・確定」に分割)とし、工程まるごとを 1 UC にしない。同一アクターのインライン例外(IRR)は同一 UC の alt 分岐に、別アクター・別トリガの収束業務とプロダクト共通能力(認証/中断再開/通知/帳票/同意/縮退/例外UX)は独立 UC に切り出す。ユーザーストーリー一覧の策定後、業務局面のオペレーション分解段階で呼び出す。

Writes product-led content pages optimized for both search engines and AI engine citations. Produces markdown files with frontmatter, following page-type frameworks (comparison, guide, use case, learn, trust) with verified sources and no fabricated data.

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 the root cause of a recurring or systemic defect across a series of incidents, not a single one. Use on the third recurrence, or when someone asks 'why again?', 'five whys', 'fix the root'. Skip for one or two ordinary cases, an already proven simple cause, or a one-off external outage. Triggers: /five-whys, five whys, fix the root.

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。

Get external links to your repos through other people's curated surfaces: awesome-lists, tool catalogs and vendor showcases. Measures each list's merge queue before submitting, so nothing goes into a dead queue. Triggers: /borrowed-audience, /ba, borrowed audience, get external links, submit to awesome lists.

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 the ArtCraft MCP integration — the community Python rebuild (C:\Users\rasta\artcraft-mcp-py\artcraft_mcp_server.py) that replaces the broken upstream artcraft-mcp.exe, the live api.storyteller.ai/v1 API map (required headers, cookie auth, endpoint schemas), the upstream bug/PR trail (issues #1/#3, PR #2), the reverse-engineering playbook (browser capture, cookie injection, schema fishing via validation errors, handshake replay, Windows MITM kit), and the generic MCP-protocol debugging playbook (snake_case servers, the shim pattern, 'missing field protocolVersion' diagnosis). Use when working on ArtCraft MCP tools, debugging an artcraft server connection, extending the Python rebuild, or diagnosing any third-party MCP handshake failure.

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 playbook for creating a new NV oOS Pro toolkit under addons/pro/includes/tools/<toolkit> — folder layout, service layer, tool class conventions (canonical envelope, two-gate sanitisation, capability flags), ALL seven registration surfaces (central registry, admin Tools section, settings status map, both WP-CLI commands, schedule presets, workflow presets, SA Toolkit Manager), fixture/oracle testing with a standalone smoke harness, and the phpcs gotcha checklist. Use when asked to build a new Pro toolkit, add a toolkit to the plugin, scaffold toolkit tools, register toolkit presets/toggles, or debug why a new toolkit's tools or presets don't appear. First case study: food-beverage (F&B Management, 21 tools, 2026-10-08, 20/20 Check-totals oracle verified). Complements mcp-ai-wpoos-toolkit-audit (hardening existing toolkits) and mcp-ai-wpoos-test-suite (repair).

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。

Per-toolkit hardening audit loop for NV oOS Pro tools. Systematically scans each addons/pro/includes/tools/<toolkit> (and its plugins/nvoos-content-graph-pro mirror) for the four recurring production failure classes — unguarded shell calls that fatal on exec-disabled hosts, calls to nonexistent client methods, string-assuming parsing of provider responses that may be arrays, and provider enum/service mismatches — then fixes, tests (Docker PHPUnit), and validates (phpcs both standards) before moving to the next toolkit. Use when asked to audit a toolkit, review the X tools for similar issues, do the same for the other toolkits, or continue the toolkit audit loop. The first case study (document-generation) found 3 fatal bugs + 1 broken regex.

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。

Surfaces user-facing custom messages from a JetFormBuilder custom Form Action — both the idiomatic path (register message types via 'jet-form-builder/form-messages/register' so they appear in the form's Messages panel and can be overridden globally per form) and the action-local path (custom message fields inside the action editor, dispatched via Action_Exception for errors or via context + 'jet-form-builder/form-handler/after-send' + Messages_Manager::dynamic_success() for success messages). Use when a custom JFB action needs configurable messages for cases like "already subscribed", "duplicate row skipped", "API rate limited", or per-action success copy. Triggers on mentions of "JFB messages", "Action_Exception", "Base_Action_Messages", "jet-form-builder/form-messages/register", "_jf_messages", "dynamic_success", "add_context_once" with a message, "after-send" hook, or "custom action message".

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。

Scan the current codebase to identify and categorize every public-facing page (landing pages, product/feature pages, solutions, pricing, resources, blogs, case studies, about, legal) and produce a single authoritative inventory document. Use this skill whenever the user asks to "init overgrow", "set up overgrow", "scan the site", "inventory the pages", "categorize pages", "map the site", or whenever any other overgrow skill needs a baseline page map and none exists yet. Output is a structured markdown inventory at `.overgrow/inventory.md` that all other overgrow skills read from.

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。

Remove signs of AI-generated code from a codebase while preserving behavior. Use when editing or reviewing code to make it read like a human engineer on this team wrote it. Works through a test-guarded detect-modify-verify loop: pin down the functional contract and edge cases first, write or run tests as a safety net, then rewrite AI tells (redundant comments, emoji, verbose names, reflexive try/except, defensive null-guards, over-decomposition, speculative abstraction, dead code, non-idiomatic constructs, hallucinated dependencies) and re-verify after every change. The tests decide whether a defensive block is slop or a real safeguard.

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。

Evaluate agent behavior with versioned cases and explicit verifiers. Use when comparing agent or prompt changes, reproducing failures, or running agent regression tests.

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。

Stop and check this skill before finishing any reply to a question about how to use Claude or a Claude product — it recommends matching courses, tutorials, and use cases from Claude Academy (academy

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。

Evaluates downstream tests for coverage and edge cases.

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。

Ensure requirement docs define scope, terminology, acceptance criteria, edge cases, and non-functional requirements.

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。

Find missing tests for critical paths, edge cases, and failure handling in changed code.

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。

Ensure tests use clear naming and cover edge cases with proper describe/it structure.

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。