2,759 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Point Cowork at a folder of resumes plus a job description -- screens every candidate against the actual requirements, produces a ranked shortlist with evidence, drafts advance/decline emails, and builds interview kits for the top picks. Pairs with hiring-scorecard for the interview stage.
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 deal assessment using MEDDIC, BANT. Risk scoring, required evidence by stage, red flag detection, coaching points.
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。
Audits a codebase or business process for regulatory compliance across GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2, CCPA, and PCI-DSS. Scans for PII handling, data retention, encryption, access controls, audit logging, consent management, and data transfer issues. Generates a structured compliance report with findings, gap analysis, remediation steps, and evidence 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。
Performs a deep code review of files, modules, a diff, or a branch - finding security vulnerabilities (mapped to OWASP Top 10:2025), correctness bugs, performance problems, and maintainability issues - and returns severity-ranked findings with evidence and concrete fixes. Use when the user asks to review, audit, or sanity-check code, asks "is this safe", "what's wrong with this", "find bugs", or wants a security or performance pass before shipping. For posting line comments on a GitHub pull request, use git-pr-reviewer.
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。
Generates and self-executes a diff-derived test plan for a PR. Use when validating PR changes before merge. Do not use for code review; use sanctum:pr-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。
Converts a Claude Code session JSONL file into an animated GIF terminal replay. Use when creating demos or visual evidence from past sessions.
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。
Hunts bugs with evidence trails. Use when investigating unexpected behavior or before merging code with potential hidden defects.
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。
Enforces validation and evidence before claiming work complete. Use before declaring implementation done, creating a PR, or submitting deliverables for 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。
Enforce evidence bar, coverage gates, and regression guards. Use when adding tests or claiming done. Do not use to run suites; use night-market-operations.
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。
Turn hunches into accepted results: worthiness score, evidence bar, research-to-rules. Use when vetting ideas. Not for QA; use night-market-validation-and-qa.
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 looking for research topics a longitudinal cohort database can answer (NHIS, UK Biobank, an institutional EMR or registry). Profiles the cohort, matches PI expertise, scans literature saturation and returns ranked topic proposals with gap evidence.
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 a grant or challenge proposal for a radiology or medical AI project, including a Korean government industry-academia plan. Structures significance, innovation, approach, aims, milestones and consortium roles, keeping claims evidence-based and executable.
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。
Finding validation gate - 7-Question triage adapted for FIND schema. Run before moving any FIND from Research to Completed. One NO = keep in Research. All YES = move to Completed, then run /evidence.
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。
Assemble a report-ready walkthrough.md for a SOLVED engagement - populate the Evidence gallery from the poc/ images captured during the engagement, and draft the step-by-step reproduction from state/loot/log (Killchain.md for pentest/bugbounty, state.md's Chain/Status for ctf) without fabricating. Use when asked to "write the walkthrough", "assemble the walkthrough", "close out the box/engagement", or at close-out once an engagement is marked SOLVED.
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。
On-demand senior red-team lead advisor. Call at a decision point or obstacle to get wiki-grounded direction instead of hammering blindly. Dispatches a fresh RTL subagent that reads the engagement state + evidence + wiki and returns ranked directions with an explicit STOP. Use for "redteamlead", "RTL", "I'm stuck", "where do I go", "what next", "which vector", "should I keep hammering 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。
Capture a Burp Suite Repeater request/response as a PoC image (targets/<eng>/poc/) by driving the Burp MCP + the Kali GUI. Replays a request in a Repeater tab, sends it, and grabs the request+response panes - a Burp-native PoC (client report / CTF writeup). Use when you want the evidence to come from Burp rather than a curl/terminal card, or whenever you drive a target through Burp and need the images. Pairs with hunt-burp.
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 an Agent Skill for valid structure, clear triggers, usable instructions, current evidence, and risky or unclear actions.
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。
Repair a failing WooCommerce Android Maestro flow by reproducing it against the store it runs on, inspecting Maestro selectors, patching the smallest selector/wait/setup issue, and rerunning with repeat evidence. Human-triggered only.
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 creating, writing, reviewing, annotating, repairing, refactoring, or validating readable Verilog RTL, including synthesizable Verilog-2001 .v files, existing-RTL analysis, semantic comment annotation, testbench scaffold planning, ASIC-quality review, local or remote Vivado/xsim validation, evidence-backed repair, and workflow trace diagnosis.
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 Skill design quality with an opinionated, practice-derived rubric informed by public specifications and examples. Use when reviewing, auditing, comparing, or improving SKILL.md files and skill packages. Produces evidence-backed findings, optional multi-dimensional scoring, and prioritized changes; treat the result as diagnostic guidance, not official certification or a universal standard.
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。
Reconstruct and report long-running or multi-turn research, architecture questions, reviews, decisions, completion results, and status as a clear, self-contained brief. Use when a reader must re-enter earlier context, understand the real question and its relationships, distinguish verified facts from judgment and open evidence, or make a decision without reconstructing the work log. Quote the relevant original user wording before substantive analysis, keep one coherent main line, use spatial diagrams when relationships matter, and finish with an explicit decision boundary and practical next step.
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。
Deeply research technical architecture, source code, mechanisms, SDKs, frameworks, project comparisons, and system-design options across repositories, history, official docs, issues, discussions, and high-quality community signals. Use when the user asks for deep research, source-level understanding, architecture comparison, mechanism satisfaction, or evidence for designing a system. Always map the question and obtain confirmation before beginning substantive research; skip for simple factual lookups or straightforward implementation tasks.
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。
Coach workers, employees, and individual contributors to turn meetings, transcripts, minutes, and work notes into better execution: infer leader expectations, diagnose previous work, identify next actions, judge delivery readiness, and prepare a high-bandwidth update. Use after meetings, during work, before reviews, or across repeated low-value discussions. Perform semantic review from source evidence.
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。
Research why neural architectures and training methods work through forward computation, geometry, gradients, optimization dynamics, historical experiments, and competing explanations. Use for deep mechanism questions about neural networks, AI models, layers, representations, or training; explain the meaning in plain language with evidence and explicit limits.
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。