9,279 件 ・ 関連度順
Review an author's manuscript, its argument and paragraph structure, analyze reviewer comments, draft rebuttals, and verify revisions. Use for self-review, structural edit plans, simulated reviewer objections, author responses, revision closure, and submission-readiness assessment. Formal assigned peer review is outside this skill; manuscript edits and final figures/tables use their owning 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 to file a GitHub issue when a finding needs its own work order or the operator asks; OBPI corrections stay in its change log.
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。
Trace what an actual code change could break beyond its diff when interfaces, serialized data, database schemas, configuration, caches, lifecycle ordering, or cross-language consumers are involved. Use for explicit impact analysis; not local renames, prose edits, ordinary dependency bumps, or generic architecture discussion.
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 Convex performance for reads, subscriptions, write contention, and function limits. Use for slow features, insights findings, OCC conflicts, or read amplification.
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 Convex performance for reads, subscriptions, write contention, and function limits. Use for slow features, insights findings, OCC conflicts, or read amplification.
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 and fix WCAG 2.2 accessibility issues. Two modes — report (sweep a codebase or page, produce a prioritized written report, no edits) and fix (audit→edit→verify loop on a target). Prefers direct-CDP live-DOM auditing; falls back to a browser-MCP composition or HTML-string audits.
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。
Detect kernel-level rootkits in Linux memory dumps using Volatility3 linux plugins (check_syscall, lsmod, hidden_modules), rkhunter system scanning, and /proc vs /sys discrepancy analysis to identify hooked syscalls, hidden kernel modules, and tampered system structures.
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 edits to existing specs (or a new spec if no existing one fits) from the card description
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 the Tamanu release-branch CUTOFF checks when preparing to cut a new release/X.YY branch: confirm the previous release's hotfixes are merged to main, reconcile the commits since the previous release against the "Merged to main" card list from Linear, and scan for data/reporting/schema changes. Use when the user is cutting a Tamanu release and wants to verify the codebase is ready, wants to check main against the previous release branch, or wants to reconcile commits with a Linear "Merged to main" column (they should paste the card list). Handles Tamanu's train-release model (release/X.YY branches vs vX.YY.Z patch tags) and the cherry-pick model where the same logical fix has different SHAs on different branches. Purely git-based — no live database or Canopy access needed. Not for verifying an existing release branch's hotfix integrity (see pre-release-checks) or for deciding which tests to run (see scope-tamanu-release-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。
Reads a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, use corrective-action-tracker. 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。
Pre-fills a customer's or prospect's security or third-party risk questionnaire from the organisation's own answer sources (prior questionnaires, answer library, policies), returning one row per question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted, Missing or Routed, its source, date, scope match and owner, plus the Missing list by owner. Never invents an answer, certification or control and never submits. Use when the user asks to "pre-fill this security questionnaire", "take a first pass at the customer's due diligence form", "answer this vendor assessment from our previous responses", "populate the third-party risk questionnaire" or "which questions can we reuse answers for". Do not use for screening a vendor's own answers, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for RFP or tender answers use rfp-response-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 knowledge article or known-error article from a resolved incident or ticket thread: symptoms as reported, environment, cause exactly as the resolver stated it, resolution steps as performed, workaround with its limits, verification, things tried without effect, related records, keywords and proposed metadata, every statement traced to a ticket note or marked UNKNOWN, with a redaction log and a question list for the knowledge owner. Never decides a root cause, adds a step or publishes. Use when the user asks to "write a KB article from this ticket", "turn this resolved incident into a knowledge article", "draft a known error record for this", "document the fix we just did" or "make this thread into a how-to for the service desk". Do not use for a procedure the team will execute (runbook, operating procedure, playbook), use runbook-drafter instead; for a post-incident review, 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。
Turns a campaign idea, its objectives and the supporting notes (audience material, offer facts, budget and dates, channel list) into one DRAFT one-page campaign brief: objectives, audience, one single-minded message with sourced proof points, channels and timeline, success measures with baselines, mandatories, risks and numbered open questions for the campaign owner. Use when the user asks to "write a campaign brief", "draft a creative brief for this launch", "turn this idea into a one-page brief", "tighten this brief to one page" or "build the marketing brief from these notes". Do not use for a message house, messaging pillars or a launch narrative on its own, use message-house-builder instead; for laying the campaign onto dated slots, use content-calendar-planner. 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 one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. 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。
Builds and maintains a DRAFT impact log from notes, messages, status updates and completed work: one row per outcome with its evidence and evidence level, date, who benefited and the source it traces to, plus a gap list of outcomes that still lack evidence, structured so a later review, appraisal or promotion case can draw on it. Use when the user asks to "start an impact log", "add this to my impact log", "log what I achieved this quarter", "pull my wins out of these notes", "turn these messages into evidence for my review" or "what do I have evidence for so far". Do not use for a performance rating, ranking, pay or promotion decision, the skill records evidence and never judges it; for the review narrative itself, use performance-review-drafter; for a role profile built from the work, use job-description-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。
実装計画・リファクタリング計画・レビュー対応計画・並列作業のタスク分解など、計画を成果物として書き出すときに必ず参照するコミット計画ルール。plan モードでは ExitPlanMode で plan を提示する前に必須、計画ドキュメントや job-graph のタスク分解・エージェントへの指示文でも同様に適用する。計画成果物にコミット計画セクション（論理的に独立した修正単位での分割と Conventional Commits 形式のメッセージ）が無ければ実装に入らない。「実装計画を立てて」「planを立てて」「実行計画を作って」「リファクタリング計画を立てて」「コミット計画を立てて」「タスクを分解して」と依頼される、複数の独立した修正をまとめるか分けるか計画段階で判断する等の場面では、ユーザーが「コミット」に一切言及していなくても必ず発火する。コミットの実施（素材収集・メッセージ確定・git commit 実行）は commit-flow スキルが担う。
`git commit` / `git commit --amend` を実行する前、または「commit」「amend」「コミット」「コミットして」の一語・短文だけを渡された時点で必ず発火する git コミット実施ルール。理由や差分の説明が一切無くても、ファイル全文を読んでメッセージを組み立てる前に先に参照する。主目的は論理的に独立した修正を都度・適切な粒度でコミットすること。メッセージは Conventional Commits 形式、素材は同梱の決定論スクリプト commit-context.sh が出す staged diff のみ。「コミット分けて」と依頼される、独立した複数修正をまとめるか分けるか判断する、レビューコメント対応をコミットする、rebase / squash / cherry-pick 後のメッセージを整える、`gh pr create` の PR タイトルをコミット流儀へ揃える場面でも参照する。plan モードでのコミット計画の立案は commit-plan スキルの領分。
Review someone else's pull request by measuring which of its own guards its own test suite actually catches, via a small mutation matrix. Use when reviewing a PR, checking whether a regression test is real, or asked 'is this change actually tested?', 'does this test do anything', 'mutation test 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。
Read-only measurement of an agent's autonomy debt from its approvals log: how many times it asked the human for permission in a window, how many asks expired unanswered, and which classes they fall into (machine noise, login or 2FA, physical UAC, money). Use to find asks the agent should have decided itself and to cut needless interruptions. Triggers: /ask-debt, autonomy debt, how often do I ask, expired asks.
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。
Decide-as-cofounder mode: the owner hands over the decision itself, so the agent does not ask back, does not offer a menu of options and does not wait, but picks, acts and reports the call with its reasoning. Triggers: /decide, /ds, decide yourself, your call, up to you, you know better, do as you see fit.
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。
Audit a codebase as a read-only senior advisor, prioritize evidence-backed improvements, and write self-contained implementation plans. Use for codebase audits, improvement roadmaps, focused planning, plan review, plan reconciliation, or executing an existing improve plan through an isolated Codex worktree. The advisor never edits source code; execution uses codex-improve and returns to the main agent 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。
Internal audit support skill aligned with IIA (Institute of Internal Auditors) International Standards. Provides risk-based audit planning, audit program development, workpaper documentation, finding development (Condition/Criteria/Cause/Effect), and Corrective Action Request (CAR) tracking. Use when: planning annual/quarterly audits, creating risk assessment matrices, developing audit programs and test procedures, documenting audit workpapers, writing audit findings and reports, tracking corrective actions and follow-ups, preparing for external audits (SOX, ISO). Triggers: "internal audit", "audit plan", "audit program", "audit workpaper", "audit finding", "risk assessment", "CAR tracking", "corrective action", "IIA Standards", "COSO framework", "監査計画", "監査プログラム", "監査調書", "是正措置", "リスク評価".
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。