4,218 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Create narrow, version-pinned Adobe SDK and REST adapters with typed contracts, redaction, bounded polling, and compatibility evidence. Use when writing or upgrading integration code. Trigger with "Adobe SDK patterns", "wrap Adobe API", or "review Adobe 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。
Postgres best practices maintained by Supabase, for Postgres running anywhere. Load this skill BEFORE writing or changing anything that lives in a Postgres database: creating or altering tables and columns (including choosing column types), schema design, migrations and declarative schema files, RLS policies and the tests that verify them, indexes, triggers, database functions, queues and scheduled jobs (pg_cron, pgmq), vector/semantic search (pgvector), and restoring dumps (pg_restore) or importing data. Also load it when diagnosing slow queries, high CPU, timeouts, EXPLAIN plans, connection exhaustion, locking, bloat, or rows visible to the wrong user or tenant. This is not just a performance guide — schema, migration, security, and SQL authoring tasks need these rules too, even for a one-column change or a single query.
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。
Rigorous, defensible email-spoofability verdict and SPF supply-chain risk analysis computed from published DNS alone. Deepens the record-level SPF/DMARC/DKIM/BIMI/MTA-STS/DNSSEC fetch recipes in the offensive-osint arsenal (§16.14) with the reasoning that section doesn't do: a priority-ordered composite verdict for whether an attacker can actually land header-From-spoofed mail in an inbox, and by which vector (exact-domain vs subdomain) — grounded in the single most-misunderstood distinction in email security: the envelope MAIL FROM that SPF authenticates vs the visible header From: that only DMARC governs. Explains precisely why SPF -all/~all alone is NOT spoof-proof without DMARC enforcement, and why SPF +all bypasses DMARC even under p=reject pct=100. Covers RFC 7208 §4.6.4's 10-DNS-lookup / 2-void-lookup PermError fail-open condition with a runnable stdlib-only lookup-counter script, plus the SPF-include-takeover supply-chain vector (an attacker re-registering a dead include inherits SPF-pass authority over the victim domain) with strict transient-vs-NXDOMAIN discrimination discipline so a temporary SERVFAIL is never mistaken for a takeover lead. Fully passive: DNS TXT reads only, no mail sent, no RCPT TO probe, no API keys. Use when auditing a domain's real spoofing resistance (not just its published records), explaining to a client why 'we have SPF -all' does not mean they're covered, investigating an SPF PermError or an unusually long include chain, evaluating a dead SPF include as a takeover lead, or writing a defensible spoofability finding for a deliverable.
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。
Implement a feature from a spec file or description using TDD workflow. Use this skill whenever the user asks to: add a new CLI command, implement a feature from a spec, build new functionality, add a flag, create a new internal package, or write Go code for skillshare. This skill enforces test-first development, proper handler split conventions, oplog instrumentation, and dual-mode (global/project) patterns. If the request involves writing Go code and tests, use this skill — even if the user doesn't explicitly say "implement".
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 CHANGELOG.md entry from recent commits in conventional format. Also syncs the website changelog page. Use this skill whenever the user asks to: generate a changelog, document what changed between tags, or create a new CHANGELOG entry. If you see requests like "write the changelog for v0.17", "what changed since last release", this is the skill to use. Do NOT manually edit CHANGELOG.md without this skill — it ensures proper formatting, user-perspective writing, and website changelog sync. For full release workflows (Release PR review, tests, draft assets, publication, announcements), use /release 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。
Guide for running tests in the openai-dotnet repository. Use this when asked to run, debug, or validate tests, or when writing new tests. Explains test modes (Playback, Record, Live), how to identify recorded vs non-recorded tests, environment variable configuration, and what to do when recordings are missing or stale.
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。
Reduce defensive disclaimers, stacked hedging, and self-protective narration when drafting, rewriting, or auditing proposals, articles, case studies, captions, and other reader-facing prose. Use when defensive wording is requested for review or appears in a draft, including wording the assistant adds. Preserve meaningful limits; do not perform general style cleanup or ordinary code work.
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。
Guides work on the Figma I/O package (@grida/io-figma, packages/grida-canvas-io-figma/). Covers the fig-kiwi binary parser, Kiwi→REST→Grida conversion pipeline, fig2grida CLI, REST API JSON conversion, and testing with clipboard/fig/REST fixtures. Use when adding node type support, fixing conversion bugs, extending fig2grida, working on the fig-kiwi parser, writing tests for Figma import, or debugging clipboard paste failures after a Figma update.
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。
Author and manage user-facing documentation for the Grida Canvas editor. Covers writing style, tone, product screenshots, demo state preparation, and content structure for pages under docs/editor/. Use when creating or editing canvas editor documentation, capturing screenshots of canvas features, or planning visual demos. Trigger phrases: "write user docs", "document this feature", "screenshot for docs", "canvas user guide", "update help page".
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。
Bug-fix discipline — every defect has an etiology, the chain of cause that produced the observable fault; trace it before patching. Errors only grow: a bandaid leaks unless genuinely localized and leak-free. Walk the diagnostic ladder (presentation → proximate cause → API contract → isolated or systemic) before writing the fix. Use when authoring or reviewing any bug fix, regression patch, "quick fix" PR, or when deciding whether to ship, defer, or refactor.
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。
Doctrine for drafting and keeping working-group docs under `docs/wg/**` — RFC/RFD specs and findings/research/glossary. A WG doc is a language-agnostic, code-agnostic study of a domain: it argues *why* and defines *what*, never *how in our code*. Use when writing or editing anything under `docs/wg/`, an RFC/RFD, a spec, a design note, a glossary, or research findings — including "write up the design", "document the spec", or "capture what we learned". Not for plans/TODOs (untracked `*.plan.md`), user docs, or SDK API refs — use `docs` to route those.
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。
Guides performance investigation, benchmarking, and optimization of the Grida Canvas web editor (TypeScript reducer, Immer, React hooks). Use when profiling reducer dispatch cost, diagnosing slow interactions (drag, resize, color change), writing or running editor benchmarks, instrumenting with PerfObserver, or optimizing the JS-side state management 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。
Guides authoring, organizing, and referencing test fixtures in this repo. Use when creating new fixtures, writing tests that depend on fixtures, or deciding what should be checked into git. Engine fixtures (rendering corpora) live in the engine repo.
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 writing or improving README files. Not all READMEs are the same — provides templates and guidance matched to your audience and project type.
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。
React useEffect best practices from official docs. Use when writing/reviewing useEffect, useState for derived values, data fetching, or state synchronization. Teaches when NOT to use Effect and better alternatives.
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 scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-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。
Prepare journal manuscripts, conference papers, research posters, and grant documents using venue-specific formatting guidance and bundled LaTeX scaffolds. Use when selecting an official template, checking current page or anonymity rules, adapting academic writing to a venue, or inspecting a submission PDF.
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。
Draft, revise, and audit scientific manuscripts or reports with explicit evidence provenance, reporting-guideline coverage, authorship accountability, confidentiality controls, and local consistency checks. Use for manuscript sections, references, declarations, tables, figures, or submission preparation when scientific accuracy and traceability matter.
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。
Comprehensive citation management for academic research. Search OpenAlex, PubMed, and Google Scholar for papers, extract accurate metadata, validate citations, and generate properly formatted BibTeX entries. This skill should be used when you need to find papers, verify citation information, convert DOIs to BibTeX, or ensure reference accuracy in scientific writing.
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。
Cut AI tells from any writing.
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。
Apply when designing types, reviewing a function signature, or writing code in any statically-typed language. Make illegal states unrepresentable, brand semantic primitives, parse external data at boundaries, exhaust variants, derive from authoritative schemas.
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。
Apply before writing logic: choosing core types and data structures, sequencing scaffold-vs-feature work, asking what concurrent actors share. Get the data structures right so downstream code becomes obvious.
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。
Apply when you catch yourself writing the same instruction a second time, or notice a recurring correction. Encode the rule as a lint, metadata flag, runtime check, or script instead of more text.
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 what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', reviewing a small diff you don't trust, or a brief that asserts something about existing code ('make X public', 'X already handles Y') before you design against that assertion.
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。