「does」の検索結果

Create, extract, or convert an ADR (architectural decision record) using the ADR template. Use when creating new ADRs, extracting an ADR from existing documentation, converting a document into an ADR, recording an architecture or design decision, or updating the status of an existing ADR. Does not create or update enforceable coding standards or conventions — use coding-standard for that. Does not write feature or system documentation — use project-documentation 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。

Detects 55 AI writing patterns and rewrites text in five voice profiles so it reads like a specific human wrote it, with an optional 0-100 AI-tell score. Use when text sounds AI-generated or like a chatbot, when preparing a blog post, README, or LinkedIn post for publication, when auditing prose for AI tells, or when editing a Markdown file in place. Triggers on phrases like "humanize this", "make this sound less AI", "make this sound human", "remove AI tells", "does this read like ChatGPT", and "rewrite so it does not sound AI-generated". Pure Markdown, zero dependencies, no network calls.

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。

Fix "Requested backend named 'X' does not exist" or TLS alert errors in Fastly Compute@Edge. Use when: (1) Backend works locally but fails in production with "backend does not exist", (2) TLS alert received (alert_id=0) errors when calling external APIs from Fastly, (3) Backends defined in fastly.toml aren't available after deployment. The fastly.toml [[backends]] section only applies during initial service creation - existing services require backends to be added via CLI or API with proper SSL/SNI configuration.

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。

Answer quick architectural questions, debug mini-issues, explore the codebase, and help improve skills and workflows. Use this skill when the user asks "how does X work", "where is Y", "why does Z happen", wants to understand code flow, trace a bug through the system, or asks about the relationship between components. Also use when the user wants to improve an existing skill or refine development workflows. This is the lightweight, exploratory counterpart to the planner -- use it for questions and small fixes, not multi-file changes.

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。

Content-Derived Design — reads existing HTML and writes a stronger standalone page from headings, facts, names, dates, numbers, links, emails, and colors already in that file. CLI: npx reimagine-it --auto -i page.html -o out.html; also variations, lock, and audit. Use when the user says /reimagine-it, "reimagine it", "reinvent this", "redesign this page", "make an infographic", wants a content-aware redesign or a visual leap instead of a mood board. All 17 tokens: webpage, infographic, svg, 3js, simulation, artistic, cinematic, dashboard, photography, landing, editorial, gradient, showcase, motion, glass, lookbook, particles — plus leftover words as a brief. Also /reimagine-it audit for quality checks. The agent runs the CLI; it does not hand-author the page. Installed via npx skills add Kayforkind/reimagine-it or plugin marketplace. Not /better. Not a mood board. Does not ingest PDF, PPTX, or DOCX.

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。

Business model classification, business model analysis, structural analysis of how a company makes money, product offering decomposition, distribution channel analysis, customer segment analysis, revenue model identification, market sizing TAM SAM SOM, competitive positioning, business unit performance, management team & leadership analysis, what does the company sell, how does the company go to market, business model type platform service product, channel mix direct vs indirect, revenue concentration risk, CEO CFO executive backgrounds and changes

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。

Deep behavioral audit of a Lattice skill — proposes 3 review personas relevant to the skill, runs independent scenario analysis from each persona's perspective, then merges only the high-confidence, practical findings into a severity-ordered gap report with proposed fixes. Structural validation (conventions, cross-references) is skill-validate's job — this skill finds gaps that would realistically surface when someone actually uses the skill: missing scenario handling, ambiguous instructions, silent failure cases, and behavioral inconsistencies. Filters out theoretical edge cases, low-likelihood speculation, and findings owned by other skills. Use after writing or significantly changing any skill, or when the user says 'review this skill', 'deep review', 'does this skill work', 'find gaps in this skill', 'stress test this skill', 'review from different angles', or 'skill review'. Standalone — does not call other 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。

Validate any Lattice SKILL.md against all tier conventions — atoms, molecules, and refiners. Catches structural errors, broken cross-references, and convention violations before they reach the repo. If you just wrote or modified a Lattice skill file and haven't run this yet, run it now — manual review consistently misses the same categories of errors this skill is specifically designed to catch. Use when the user says 'validate this skill', 'check this skill', 'does this follow conventions', 'review this skill file', 'check my SKILL.md', or 'skill validate'. Reports PASS/FAIL with specific file-and-section findings and actionable fixes. Standalone — does not call other 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。

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

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。

Routing skill of last resort. Takes a plain-language QA situation and names the right 1-2 skills to use and in what order. Use ONLY when the request does not match any other skill's trigger phrases. Use when: "which skill should I use," "where do I start," "I'm not sure what to test," "/qa-do," or any vague QA situation that doesn't map to one skill. Not for: bootstrapping a brand-new project with no QA — use qa-start. Not for: capturing project setup/context — use qa-project-context. If the request clearly matches another skill, invoke that skill directly instead of routing through here. Related: qa-start, qa-project-context, test-strategy.

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 the working-tree changes (vs main) for correctness, concurrency, architecture, testing, and API/doc issues — following .github/CODE_REVIEW.md — and return a severity-graded report. Scales the machinery to the diff size: a single code-reviewer agent for a small change, or a fan-out-and-verify Workflow for a large/multi-unit one. Produces findings; it does not apply fixes (the caller does).

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 for 'why does X work this way', 'why we picked Y', '为什么这么设计', design rationale, regressions, or where a magic number came from. Fans out one investigator per evidence category — in this repo that starts with the local decision record (ADRs, docs/design, the daemon issue store, the changelog, wisp) plus git history, and adds MCP-backed categories when the session has them — then returns a cited read with the gaps named. Use `how` for what the code does at runtime.

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。

Flagship intra-paper self-consistency forensics: does the paper contradict ITSELF across abstract/intro/tables/body/appendix, and does the method DESCRIBED match the method EVALUATED? Needs no external ground truth — works PDF-only (L0). Runs a deterministic arithmetic pass + a fresh cross-model semantic pass, every finding span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json), reviewer≠adjudicator. Emits consistency-audit.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. Triggers: "consistency audit", "check the paper against itself", "self-consistency", "内部自洽".

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。

awareness-stage-mapper workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs One sentence - what this skill does and when to invoke it and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing 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。

awareness-stage-mapper workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs One sentence - what this skill does and when to invoke it and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing 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。

GitHub 解封 — 账号封禁/限制/恢复的领域操作系统。覆盖：(a) GitHub 官方政策体系 (TOS / 可接受使用政策 / Trust & Safety 执行模式 / 公开申诉路径 / 受制裁地区解读)；(b) 封号原因诊断学 (spam / abuse / 制裁误标 / 2FA 丢失 / ToS 违规 / 账号劫持误判 / ban evasion 等子类型 + 症状→原因映射 + 自我分诊压测)；(c) 申诉实操 craft (写一封能让 T&S 快速判误伤的英文申诉信 + 升级阶梯 + 法务介入边界 + Don'ts)；(d) 制裁与合规硬边界 (OFAC SDN 名单 / 哪些国家或地区真不可达 / VPN 误判路径 / 中国大陆不是美国制裁地区的反复重申)；(e) 中国大陆开发者特别处境 (sanctioned region 误标 + SMS 验证不支持 +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab 备用迁移 + 私有自托管 Gitea/Forgejo)；(f) 真实案例库 (~30+ 公开案例分类拆解：误伤 / 真违规 / 制裁误标三类各自赔率与申诉成功路径)。伦理锚绝不软化：不教 ban evasion / 不教撒谎式申诉 / 真违规承认改进 / 丢 2FA 无恢复因子则诚实告知 / 中国制裁误标靠申诉不靠换 VPN / 申诉 6 个月窗口必算清 / 约 3% (业内估) 真违规恢复 vs 约 79% (业内估) 误伤申诉成功率分层标。 (GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: false-positive / genuine violation / sanctions mis-flag, each with win-rate and appeal success path). Ethical anchors absolutely not softened: do NOT teach ban evasion (creating new accounts turns a temp ban into a permanent one — the single biggest mistake); do NOT teach social engineering or lying in appeals (misuse + actually confirms violation); genuine violations: admit + improve beats denial; lost 2FA + no recovery factor → do not pretend recovery is possible; China sanctioned-region mis-flag → fix via appeal, not repeated VPN switching; appeal form 6-month window must be counted carefully; historical 约 3% (业内估) genuine-violation recovery vs 约 79% (业内估) false-positive appeal success rate stratification must be honestly labeled. Anti-samples (explicitly describe harm, never endorse): developer permabanned for ban evasion / open-source team org-banned for personal attacks in public issues / cases where repeated VPN switching escalated risk-control severity.) Master OS — automated mastery of GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: fa

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 hierarchical _FEATURES.md files that describe what a codebase DOES from a user/consumer perspective, anchored to source symbols via tree-sitting. Supports large complex codebases through feature-driven decomposition into sub-feature files. Uses a multi-pass synthesis: orientation → detail → overview rewrite. Use when someone says "what does this do", "document features", "feature inventory", "_FEATURES.md", or needs to understand a codebase's purpose before modifying it. Complements tree-sitting (structural) with semantic (why/what-for) layer.

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 tests that enumerate a domain by copying it, and declare the invariants a codebase depends on. Reports where a parametrize list, for-loop, or it.each iterates a hand-written subset of a dict/set/tuple/Enum that exists in the source, and names the members nothing covers. Use when reviewing tests, when a module gains a name-to-thing table, registry, enum, or dispatch map, before trusting a green suite as evidence a domain is covered, or when asked "is this test actually total", "does anything cover X", "what does this repo guarantee", "which invariants do we declare". Also for vacuous tests that pass over an empty collection, for a domain that has silently NARROWED (an enumeration cannot see that), and for recording the refutation that proves a claim can fail.

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 the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

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。

Counts and compares blog posts across a target and competitors, audits content freshness via sitemap lastmod dates, and maps competitor organic keywords (US, non-branded, informational) against the target to surface ranking gaps. Use when asked to compare blog counts, content volume, publishing cadence, content freshness, keyword mapping, keyword gap analysis, or competitor keyword reports — e.g. "how many blog posts does X have vs Y", "how fresh is content on X", "where does [target] rank for [competitor] keywords", "keyword gap between X and Y". Works from company names alone. Always use for blog comparison, freshness audits, and keyword mapping 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。

Neo4j JavaScript/TypeScript Driver v6 — driver lifecycle, executeQuery, managed transactions (executeRead/executeWrite), session.run, Integer handling, JSON serialization, record access, async/await patterns, TypeScript types, error handling, and connection setup for Node.js and browser. Use when writing JS/TS code that connects to Neo4j — neo4j.driver(), executeQuery, executeRead, executeWrite, session.run, neo4j.int, record.get, Integer, BookmarkManager, bolt://, neo4j+s://. Does NOT handle Cypher query authoring — use neo4j-cypher-skill. Does NOT cover driver version migration — use neo4j-migration-skill.

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。

Neo4j .NET Driver v6 — IDriver lifecycle, DI registration (singleton), ExecutableQuery fluent API, ExecuteReadAsync/ExecuteWriteAsync managed transactions, IResultCursor (FetchAsync/ ToListAsync), record value access (.Get<T>/As<T>), null safety, UNWIND batching, temporal types, await using, EagerResult, object mapping, CancellationToken, error handling, and common traps. Use when writing C# or .NET code connecting to Neo4j. Also triggers on Neo4j.Driver, IDriver, ExecutableQuery, ExecuteReadAsync, ExecuteWriteAsync, IResultCursor, IAsyncSession, or any Bolt/Aura work in .NET/C#. Does NOT handle Cypher authoring — use neo4j-cypher-skill. Does NOT cover driver version upgrades — use neo4j-migration-skill.

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 Neo4j GenAI Plugin ai.text.* functions and procedures for in-Cypher embedding generation, text completion, structured output, chat, tokenization, and batch ingestion. Covers ai.text.embed(), ai.text.embedBatch(), ai.text.completion(), ai.text.structuredCompletion(), ai.text.aggregateCompletion(), ai.text.chat(), ai.text.tokenCount(), ai.text.chunkByTokenLimit(), and provider configuration for OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, VertexAI, and Amazon Bedrock. Requires CYPHER 25. Replaces deprecated genai.vector.encode(). Use when writing pure-Cypher GraphRAG, embedding nodes in-graph, generating structured maps from prompts, or calling LLMs inside Cypher queries. Does NOT handle neo4j-graphrag Python library pipelines — use neo4j-graphrag-skill. Does NOT handle vector index creation/search — use neo4j-vector-index-skill.

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。

Build and configure a GraphQL API backed by Neo4j using @neo4j/graphql v7 (current) or v5 (LTS). Covers Neo4jGraphQL constructor, getSchema(), assertIndexesAndConstraints(), type definitions with @node, @relationship (IN/OUT/UNDIRECTED), @cypher for custom resolvers, @authorization/@authentication for JWT/JWKS security, auto-generated queries/mutations, OGM programmatic access, subscriptions via CDC, and Apollo Federation. Use when writing typeDefs, securing fields, or wiring Neo4j to Apollo Server. Does NOT handle raw Cypher outside resolvers — use neo4j-cypher-skill. Does NOT cover Spring Data Neo4j entity mapping — use neo4j-spring-data-skill.

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。