478 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Systematic review response workflow from comment analysis to professional rebuttal writing. Use when the user asks to "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "draft review response", or "analyze review comments". Improves paper acceptance rates.
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。
Diagnose BB-specific Codex session controls, model acceptance, and durable goals.
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 completion discipline for substantial autonomous work by writing acceptance gates before execution, decomposing work with the Depth Tree, running approved checks, and re-verifying evidence before reporting. Use when an agent faces a long or multi-part task, work that has returned half-done, an exhaustive audit or build, parallel leaves or pipelines, or explicit triggers such as /unlazy, $unlazy, "tree N", "gates", and "do not stop until it is done".
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。
Create or update feature specifications from natural language descriptions. Use when starting new features or refining requirements. Generates spec.md with user stories, functional requirements, and acceptance criteria following spec-driven development methodology.
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 complete product feature specification with acceptance criteria, scope, dependencies, and risks. Delegates to the Prometeo (PM) agent.
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。
Plan, delegate, review, and recover coding-agent implementation work with tight scope control, acceptance criteria, and validation.
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 planning, executing, and independently validating Jetson Video Codec SDK or PyNvVideoCodec encode/decode, transcode, segmentation, container decode, AV1, or concise acceptance workflows.
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。
[omh] High-stakes technical proposal needing approval: consensus planning with review gates. Use when the user says: ralplan, consensus plan, reviewed plan, issue to PR, acceptance criteria, verification command, reviewable PR, risky planning.
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。
[omh] Accepted plan awaiting implementation: split it into disjoint parallel lanes with per-lane acceptance criteria, verification commands, and owners; prevents two lanes editing the same file. Aliases: ulw. Use when the user says: ultrawork, parallel work, parallel implementation, parallel then integrate, high throughput, coding team, coordinated workers, finish until done.
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 structured .code-task.md files from descriptions or PDD implementation plans. Auto-detects input type, creates properly formatted tasks with Given-When-Then acceptance criteria.
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。
Write or revise an MVP product requirements document with scope and observable acceptance criteria.
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。
Exercise a running product against acceptance criteria and report evidence. Build success alone does not verify behavior.
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。
Diagnostic-only test suite auditor. Classifies repo type, maps against 7-layer testing taxonomy (git hooks → static → unit → integration → system → E2E → acceptance), runs deterministic quality gates (coverage, mutation, CRAP, architecture, escape-scan), builds RTM / personas / journeys traceability, produces TEST_AUDIT.md, updates tests/TESTING.md, and mandatorily hands off to implement-tests when gaps are found. Use when auditing test quality, finding test gaps, or running the full 7-layer sweep. Trigger with "audit tests", "find gaps", "test audit", "check test quality", "full sweep", "7-layer audit", "rtm check".
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。
Verify web frontend behavior through real GUI interactions, read-only page inspection, and screenshots. Use for frontend acceptance tests, bug reproduction, interaction feedback, and visual checks with the browser tools available in the session.
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。
Owns the security posture of the organization — architecture, program strategy, risk acceptance, incident command, and the authority to stop work that creates unacceptable exposure. Use this for a security strategy or program decision, when a technical choice creates security risk that needs a verdict, when deciding whether to accept or block a risk, when standing up a security function, or when security and delivery priorities conflict and someone has to decide.
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 down what is being built so a team can build it and know when they are done — problem and success measure before solution, scope stated by exclusion, user-visible behavior including the states everyone forgets, acceptance criteria someone can test, and the open questions named rather than buried. Use this to write a specification, review one that is causing rework, or work out why a delivered feature technically matched the request and still was not what anyone wanted.
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。
Drive feature development using Outside-In TDD with Hexagonal Architecture. Design emerges through inline code, in-memory fakes, interface extraction, and deferred I/O. Use when building features, writing tests, or structuring backend services. Triggers on: TDD, outside-in, hexagonal, ports and adapters, emergent design, acceptance test, component test, walking skeleton, in-memory fakes, component, contract test, adapter, fast tests, sub-second feedback. Language-agnostic (Go, Rust, Python, TypeScript, Java, C#).
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。
Write feature specifications as requirements and user stories with acceptance criteria, focusing on business value and testable conditions.
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。
Feature specification creation from codebase research. Produces requirements, acceptance criteria, architecture decisions, implementation plans, and risk analysis.
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 product or tech specs into concrete Notion tasks that Claude code can implement. Breaks down spec pages into detailed implementation plans with clear tasks, acceptance criteria, and progress tracking to guide development from requirements to completion.
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。
Refine a draft task specification into a fully planned, implementation-ready task with acceptance criteria, architecture, per-step sub-task files and verifiable phases
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 preserving product intent, acceptance criteria, decision memory, open loops, roadmap context, or the product-manager continuity layer of an agent team.
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 explicit validation checkpoints (verification gates) between project phases to catch errors early and ensure quality before proceeding. Use when the user asks about quality gates, milestone checks, phase transitions, approval steps, go/no-go decision points, or preventing cascading errors across a multi-step workflow. Produces acceptance criteria checklists, automated CI gate configurations, manual sign-off requirements, and conditional review rules for scenarios such as security changes, API changes, or database migrations.
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。
Compare RPI planning and implementation evidence, record review findings, and route follow-up work. Use when an implementation needs acceptance 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。