「all」の検索結果

Operating Roblox Studio for game development — the visual editor in which the 3D scene is built, tested, and published. Use this skill for: Studio basics (Explorer, Workspace, play-test, saving the place as .rbxl), the interplay with Rojo (Connect, scene-vs-code mode), AI control of Studio via the Roblox-Studio-MCP (execute_luau, insert_from_creator_store, generate_material, screen_capture, Play/Stop, reading the Console), the complete asset-pipeline workflow (Creator Store → clean up → kit → scene → .rbxl → Rojo brings it to life), and above all the MANDATORY malware scan for marketplace assets. Also trigger on "embed an asset from the Store", "Studio MCP not working", "studios: []", "generate material", "save scene", "is this Roblox asset safe", "scripts disappear after Play".

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。

Plant, spiegelt, verifiziert, stellt wieder her oder archiviert Dateien explizit über den fail-closed mac-backup-Kern. Für die eigenen hostübergreifenden Backup-Jobs des Nutzers verwenden; nicht für allgemeine Cloud-Synchronisation oder beiläufiges Dateikopieren.

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。

Erstellt oder überarbeitet einen Skill FÜR DIESES ÖKOSYSTEM: delegiert die generische Interview-/Entwurfs-/Eval-Schleife an das offizielle skill-creator-Plugin (Anthropic, Apache-2.0), setzt aber zusätzlich die ellmos-Anforderungen durch, die das offizielle Plugin nicht kennt — Haus-Frontmatter (9 Felder), Kategorie/Sichtbarkeits-Regeln, anbieter-/nutzer-/ellmos-neutrale aber ellmos-sensitive Erkennung via grounding-seed, mitgelieferte config.json (inkl. Lernvertrag) + connections.json, Anbieter-/Vendor-Bewusstsein (State-of-the-Art-Alternativen inkl. eigener ellmos-Komponenten vorschlagen), einen Selbstaktualisierungs-Abschnitt UND einen wiederverwendbaren Lern-/Abdeckungs-Dateisatz (user-usecases.json, usecase-gaps.json, known-providers-and-abilities.json, gap-closing-analysis.json — an skill-creators evals.json und A2A/AgentSkill angelehnt, kein Parallelstandard). IMMER nutzen, wenn ein NEUER Skill für dieses System entstehen oder ein bestehender auf ellmos-Konformität nachgerüstet werden soll — auch bei "erstelle einen Skill", "bau mir einen Skill für X", "skill-creator nutzen", "neuen Skill anlegen", "diesen Skill ellmos-konform machen", "Lernvertrag/Verhaltenscodex für einen Skill anlegen", "Usecase-Abdeckung eines Skills prüfen". Für reines Skill-FINDEN/ROUTEN stattdessen skill-finder, für Landschafts-Audit skill-explorer.

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。

Wählt vor komplexer Multi-Agent-Arbeit gemeinsam mit dem Nutzer eine passende, begrenzte Orchestrierung und erzeugt einen kompakten Session-Vertrag. Nutze den Skill bei /choose-your-orchestrator, bei unsicherer Kombination aus Orchestrator, Schwarm, Modellrouting oder Nutzerpräferenzmodell sowie vor Agentenprogrammen, die Modellslots, Parallelität, Spawn-Tiefe, Schreibgrenzen, Abnahme und Eskalation ausdrücklich festlegen müssen.

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。

Hosting-Muster, um eine lokal gebaute Anwendung (eigene Datenbank, eigener API-Key, In-Process-State) sicher hostbar zu machen, ohne Nutzerverwaltung zu bauen. Kernzug — der Host speichert nichts, der Browser des Besuchers speichert alles — sodass Pro-Besucher-Accounts, Zugriffsprüfungen und Löschfristen gegenstandslos werden, statt gelöst werden zu müssen. Nutzen, wenn eine lokal gebaute App für mehrere Besucher gehostet werden soll, bei "mach das ohne Login hostbar", "keine Nutzerkonten bauen", "Datenschutzerklärung für ein gehostetes Tool verkleinern", "wer ist verantwortlich, wenn wir nichts speichern" oder beim Wählen/Implementieren eines Server-Modus (`local`, `huckepack-gift`, `huckepack-only-host`, `pay-membership`). Liefert eine Data-Flow-Plan-Vorlage, eine Datenschutz-Vorlage und eine rechtliche Ersteinschätzung (DSGVO/TDDDG/UWG, deutsch) als Referenzen.

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。

Creates a personalised daily newspaper from RSS feeds and web sources. Ported from the BACH news system (news.py + newspaper_generator.py). Own SQLite store (no Origin-DB). feedparser optional — XML fallback via stdlib. PDF export via Edge Headless (msedge.exe).

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。

Interaktives Reißverschluss-Audit-Verfahren für eine Serie von Apps/Prüfobjekten: der User testet live und gibt kurzes Feedback im Chat, der Agent startet dabei bereits das nächste Objekt UND wertet parallel das Feedback des vorigen aus (strukturiert erfassen, Reparaturaufträge sofort an Worker delegieren) — statt sequenziell zu warten. Nutze diesen Skill bei "human-loop-audit", "lass uns die Apps im Reißverschluss durchtesten", "ich teste, du wertest aus und reparierst", oder wenn eine Reihe von GUIs/Produkten gemeinsam mit dem Nutzer durchgetestet werden soll und Befunde sofort in Reparaturen münden sollen. Abschluss ist eine strukturierte Befundliste je Objekt (Funktioniert/Defekt/Wunsch) plus die Liste der bereits gestarteten Reparaturen.

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。

Evolutionary file renaming with wrapper files, plus the terse MOVED-stub standard for whole folder/file moves. Enables renames without hard breaks — references are organically updated through usage.

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。

Structured 6-step procedure for improving, renovating, or rebuilding existing pipelines, individual project folders, documentation structures, or software stacks. Addressable as "pipeline optimizer" (for whole topic pipelines, e.g. a software, research, or game-dev pipeline) or "project-folder optimizer" (for individual project folders within a pipeline, e.g. a single software tool or paper project). Triggers on tasks like "improve pipeline X", "optimize the stack", "rebuild Y", "renovation", "pipeline refactoring", "clean up project folder", "improve folder structure", "unify conventions", "documentation consolidation", "integrate into existing system", or any substantial intervention in established structures. Delivers building-stock analysis, purpose clarification, ideal sketch, gap plan, empirical pain-point identification, and retests with fresh subagents. Prevents parallel standards, duplication, and pipeline breaks.

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。

Meta-/Umbrella-Skill für die Familie „Projekt-/Pipeline-Aufbau & -Umbau". Kennt alle Skills für Anlegen, Aufnehmen, Umbauen und Analysieren von Projekten und Pipelines und leitet zum passenden weiter. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn unklar ist, ob etwas neu angelegt (Greenfield) oder umgebaut (Bestand) werden soll bzw. ob es um ein einzelnes Projekt oder eine ganze Pipeline geht. Auch auslösen bei „neues Projekt/Pipeline anlegen", „bestehendes umbauen", „Projekt aufnehmen", „Ordnerstruktur renovieren", „welcher Bootstrapper passt".

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。

Standard-Gerüst für rotierende Pipeline-Checks: Pro Lauf genau ein Ziel aus einer Menge (Projekte, Ordner, Repos) wählen — bevorzugt das am längsten ungeprüfte —, den Check durchführen, Ergebnis in einer Check-Registry und einem Verlaufslog festhalten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein wiederkehrender Check über viele Projekte verteilt werden soll („prüfe regelmäßig alle X auf Y"), wenn eine Automatisierung Doppelprüfungen vermeiden muss, wenn eine Check-Registry/CHECKS-LOG-Struktur angelegt oder benutzt wird, oder wenn eine periodische Qualitätsrunde (Quellencheck, Style-Check, Health-Check, Audit) über eine Pipeline fair verteilt werden soll.

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。

Regelmäßiger Pflegedurchlauf für ein bereits veröffentlichtes GitHub-Repository (Stufe 1, günstig und oft wiederholbar): zuerst alle Distributionsflächen des Projekts ermitteln (npm, PyPI, Registries, Marketplaces, Stores, Website) und Änderungen später dorthin spiegeln, dann Topics setzen, Privacy-Gate, Dokumente auf Veröffentlichungsabsicht prüfen und interne Planungsdateien nachträglich ignorieren, Banner ergänzen, Aussagen im README gegen den echten Code-Stand abgleichen, Darstellung verbessern, Sprachfassungen der README vervollständigen, Sichtbarkeitsmaßnahmen umsetzen, Eintrag auf der Organisationsseite prüfen sowie offene Issues und Pull Requests abarbeiten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein bestehendes Repo gepflegt, aufgeräumt, aktualisiert, aufgehübscht oder "mal wieder durchgesehen" werden soll, wenn ein Repo veraltet oder unaufgeräumt wirkt, bei Formulierungen wie "Repo-Pflege", "after care", "Nachpflege", "Repo auf Stand bringen", "aufräumen und pushen" oder bei rotierenden Qualitätsrunden über mehrere Repos. Für die tiefe Runde inkl. Rechtscheck und orga-übergreifenden Querverweisen stattdessen full-after-care nutzen; für die Erstveröffentlichung github-repo-care.

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。

Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.

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。

Builds an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack 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。

Compares one policy against one requirement set (standard, regulation, contract schedule or customer requirement) clause by clause and returns a draft gap review: each requirement element, the policy clause that appears to address it, an apparent match state, and every gap as a question with the clause reference on both sides. Never concludes that the policy complies; the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "gap our policy against the standard", "map this policy to the regulation clause by clause", "check the security policy against the customer's contract schedule", "compare our policy with the new edition" or "where does our policy fall short of the requirements". Do not use for mapping a requirement to the operating controls that implement it, use controls-gap-pack instead; for what a regulatory change means for the organisation, use regulatory-change-impact-note. 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。

Builds a DRAFT proposal skeleton from a discovery summary (call notes, discovery brief, CRM record, emails) and the organisation's own proposal template: every template section in order, pre-filled only where the discovery material supports it with the source beside each line, and every section still needing a human input marked HUMAN INPUT with the owner role and the question to answer. Use when the user asks to "start the proposal for <prospect>", "build the proposal skeleton from the discovery notes", "pre-fill our proposal template", "what do we already have for the proposal" or "first cut of the proposal". Do not use for answering a formal RFP, RFQ or tender question set, use rfp-response-drafter instead; for turning a priced estimate into a statement of work use estimate-to-sow. 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。

Writes a DRAFT weekly KPI report from the figures the user pastes or attaches (this week, last week, optionally target and earlier weeks): a metrics table with change versus last week computed only from the stated figures, plain-language notes per metric, and numbered questions on every figure that moved more than the agreed threshold, crossed its target or broke its run. Use when the user asks to "write the weekly KPI report", "turn these numbers into this week's metrics report", "what changed versus last week", "draft the Monday numbers update" or "add commentary to this metrics table". Do not use for a recurring emailed report with a maintained trend sheet, use report-attachment-analyzer instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer. 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。

Builds a personal voice profile from roughly 90 days of the user's own sent messages and meeting speech, then drafts emails and documents that match how the user actually writes, returning the profile and every draft as Markdown for the user to keep, paste or send themselves. Use when the user asks to "write this like me", "match my voice", "draft this in my tone", "build my voice profile" or "refresh my voice profile". Do not use for an announcement in the organisation's voice, use announcement-drafter instead, nor for a weekly status email, use weekly-status-update-writer 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。

Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-drafter 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。

Answers an employee's or manager's HR policy question strictly from the policy documents the user supplies or the agent can reach as knowledge: a DRAFT answer that quotes the governing clause with its document, version and clause reference, lists the conditions and exceptions the text states, returns UNKNOWN where the documents are silent and names the role to ask. Never invents a rule, fills a gap from general practice or decides an individual's case. Use when the user asks to check a policy, for example "what does the policy say about", "am I entitled to", "how many days of leave do I get", "what is the process for requesting", "does the handbook allow" or "which clause covers". Do not use for comparing two policy versions or briefing a change, use policy-change-briefing 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。

Builds a one-page meeting preparation brief from the calendar invite, recent mail threads with the attendees, chat messages and shared files: purpose, what each attendee likely wants, open threads, key files, talking points and risks. Returns it in the chat as a DRAFT Markdown document capped at 450 words. Use when the user asks to "prep me for my next meeting", "what do I need to know before the vendor call", "one-pager for tomorrow's steering meeting" or "brief me on my 2pm". Do not use for minutes or action items after a meeting, use meeting-minutes-writer or transcript-to-actions 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。

Pre-tests one message (email, announcement, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or slide) against two to six role personas the user supplies and returns a DRAFT panel report: each persona's likely first reaction, objections, unanswered questions, misreadings and what they would do next, every point tied to the passage that triggers it, plus suggested edits that add no fact the message does not already hold. Use when the user asks to "pre-test this message", "how will the team read this", "run this past the personas", "what objections will this raise", "find the holes before I send" or "check this lands with managers and field staff". Do not use for an in-character review of a proposal or business case by one executive archetype, use the executive-review family (cfo-reviewer, frontline-skeptic-reviewer and siblings) instead; to write the message in the first place, use announcement-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。

Builds a DRAFT quiz from the training content the user supplies (slide deck, manual, e-learning script, session transcript, procedure): numbered questions with the correct answer, distractors drawn from the content itself, an explanation quoting the source passage with its location, a difficulty tag (Recall, Apply, Analyse) with its basis, and a coverage table showing which sections and objectives each question tests and which are left uncovered. Use when the user asks to "build a quiz from this deck", "write knowledge check questions for this module", "create an assessment from this training", "test understanding of this procedure" or "which sections does this quiz cover". Do not use for a reader-facing question and answer page built from documents, use faq-builder instead; for writing the procedure itself from notes or a walkthrough, use sop-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。

Drafts one issue of an internal newsletter from the items the user provides (notes, messages, snippets, meeting outputs, contributor submissions): a running order with the reason for each position, a factual headline and one paragraph per item with its source line, one call to action per item with date and route, two subject-line options, an item register accounting for every item supplied, and a list of items that need an owner's confirmation before send. Use when the user asks to "draft this month's newsletter", "turn these items into the team update", "write the staff bulletin from these notes", "order and headline these items" or "prepare the internal digest". Do not use for one piece of news that needs its own send, use announcement-drafter instead; for a digest of external news, use news-monitor-digest; for a personal weekly status note, use weekly-status-update-writer. 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。