「failure analysis」の検索結果

Grounded in first principles, rigorously examine and refine a user's plan, task, decision, goal, strategy, proposal, or idea through structured, progressively deeper questioning, in order to bridge the gap between the User and the Agent. Use when the user explicitly requests grilling, challenge, pressure-testing, cross-examination, red-team review, pre-mortem analysis, or a decision audit. The goal is to uncover unclear objectives, hidden assumptions, contradictions, weak evidence, missing information, overlooked constraints, dependencies, risks, trade-offs, failure modes, and misalignment between intended outcomes and likely real-world results. Begin by establishing a shared understanding of the user's actual intent, goals, constraints, and success criteria. Ask focused, high-leverage questions rather than broad or repetitive ones. Adapt each question based on previous answers, probing deeper where uncertainty, unsupported assumptions, or strategic weaknesses remain. Regularly summarize the current understanding of the user's intent and position to confirm alignment, expose misunderstandings, and refine the problem or goal definition. Distinguish facts, assumptions, hypotheses, and unknowns. Challenge reasoning rigorously while remaining constructive, respectful, and solution-oriented. Continue until the reasoning is internally coherent, evidence-aware, constraint-conscious, risk-assessed, and translated into a clearer, more actionable goal, decision, or plan. Ultimately, achieving the super-alignment.

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。

Internal — for Boundless team members only. Cross-reference Boundless indexer API data, broker telemetry, and service logs to investigate production and staging operational issues. Use when the user wants to understand why slashings happened on prod/staging, diagnose prover or service failures in deployed environments, correlate market events with broker behavior, investigate fulfillment rate drops, look at prover/service logs, or perform any analysis that requires combining on-chain indexer data with off-chain broker telemetry and CloudWatch logs. Also use when the user asks to "investigate", "diagnose", or "find root cause" for prover, service, or market issues on live networks. Do NOT use for debugging local code changes, reviewing PRs, or investigating issues in the codebase itself.

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 production telemetry as INPUT to design new tests. Covers OpenTelemetry integration with tests, trace-based assertions, log-informed test creation, production-error analysis for coverage gaps, and telemetry-driven test prioritization. Use when: "trace-based testing," "design tests from logs," "OpenTelemetry assertions," "production errors point to test gaps," "telemetry-driven testing." Not for: safe rollout techniques (flags, canary) during release — use testing-in-production. Not for: scheduled post-deploy probes — use synthetic-monitoring. Not for: triaging CI failures — use ai-bug-triage. Related: testing-in-production, synthetic-monitoring, qa-metrics, ai-bug-triage.

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。

Finds the cause of a hard bug by running several read-only subagents in parallel, each attacking it from a different angle (change history, code path, data and state, environment, reproduction), then checking their evidence, ranking the hypotheses and naming the one experiment that would confirm the leader. It diagnoses and does not fix. Use when someone says "hunt this bug with multiple agents", "swarm on this regression", "investigate in parallel", "find the root cause", or when a failure is intermittent, crosses components, or has resisted a first look.

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。

Analyze production Agentforce agent behavior using session traces and Data Cloud, and manage Agent Health Monitoring (AHM) alerts. TRIGGER when: user queries STDM session data or Data Cloud trace records; investigates production agent failures, regressions, or performance issues; asks about session traces, conversation logs, or agent metrics; wants to reproduce a reported production issue in preview; runs findSessions or trace analysis queries; creates, lists, updates, or deletes an AHM data alert on an agent metric (escalation rate, deflection, etc.); asks why an alert is not firing or wants to check whether alerts have fired (notification counts, or the per-alert Incidents view). DO NOT TRIGGER when: user creates, modifies, or debugs .agent files during development (use agentforce-generate); writes or runs test specs (use agentforce-test); uses sf agent preview for local development iteration; deploys or publishes agents.

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。

Executes an approved implementation plan through fresh implementer and reviewer agents for each task, with explicit handoffs, focused tests, and task-by-task integration. Use for multi-task work where independent agent context improves implementation and review quality. Not for a single small edit, an unresolved design, or a failure that still needs root-cause 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。

Systematic debugging method: 5-step root-cause analysis (capture, isolate, hypothesize, investigate, fix & verify) plus common bug-pattern reference. Use when errors, exceptions, test failures, or unexpected behavior appear. Loaded automatically by the debugger 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。

Diagnosis of why structural materials fail — ductile overload, brittle cleavage, fatigue, creep, stress-corrosion cracking, hydrogen embrittlement, and corrosion. Covers Griffith fracture mechanics, the ductile-to-brittle transition, the S-N and Paris fatigue frameworks, fractographic interpretation, and the J.E. Gordon view that strength, stiffness, and toughness are distinct properties that must be understood together to prevent collapse.

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。

Bench instruments and measurement techniques for electronics — digital multimeter, oscilloscope, logic analyzer, spectrum analyzer, function generator, power supply, and their proper use. Covers probing technique, ground loops, loading effects, trigger modes, FFT mode pitfalls, signal integrity, noise budget analysis, and debugging workflows from "it doesn't work" to "here is the failure mechanism." Use when measuring, debugging, or characterizing any electronic circuit or firmware-hardware interaction.

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。

Activates on any Python task involving *.py files, uv, ruff, ty, pytest, or pyproject.toml — loads the shared Python 3.11+ standards and routes the task to the specialist skill that applies them: TDD, CLI, web, data, async, typing, packaging, publishing, documentation sites, test design, test-failure analysis, or stdlib-only constrained environments.

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 or maintain the full tdmcp repo quality-audit team: command sweeps, all package/Makefile/CI gates, security review, usability/flow review, refactor/test-gap analysis, coverage hardening, QA, and follow-up fix waves. Use whenever the user asks for a complete audit, improve repo/code quality, test all commands, find security/usability failures, refactor debt, add missing tests, re-run the audit, continue a previous quality wave, or verify the repo is ready.

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 starting a new project. Genesis finds real production failures from similar GitHub repos, then builds a working MVP immediately - not just documents. Two modes: fast-mvp (5 min research cap, builds right after) and deep-research (full analysis). Success = user can run the project. Triggers on: "genesis init [vision]", "I want to build X", "scaffold", "new project", "set up project", "start building", "create a tool", "make a CLI", "bootstrap", "בנה פרויקט", "צור פרויקט", "התחל פרויקט".

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 silent failures when parsing Grafema semantic IDs that are in URI format instead of legacy arrow format. Use when: (1) code splits semantic IDs by "->" but gets the whole string back because IDs are grafema:// URIs, (2) file path extraction from semantic IDs returns empty or wrong values, (3) derived edges (DEPENDS_ON, etc.) produce 0 results despite source edges existing, (4) any code that processes semantic IDs after the analysis pipeline's to_uri_format() has run. The grafema:// URI format uses # fragments with percent-encoded characters instead of -> separators.

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。

Compile, profile, diagnose, optimize, and compare Ascend NPU operators across CANN versions and A2/A3/A5 for Ascend C, CATLASS, Triton-Ascend, TileLang-Ascend, PyPTO, and SHMEM/MC2. Use when an operator already has a runnable implementation and the user asks for msOpProf collection, bottleneck analysis, source-level tuning, or a reproducible before/after performance report. Do not use as the primary workflow for operator creation, migration, or unresolved correctness failures.

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。

Execute git commits using the Conventional Commits specification. Use this skill whenever the user says "commit", "git commit", "/commit", "stage and commit", "make a commit", "save my changes", or asks to commit specific files or all changes. Also triggers on phrases like "push my changes" (commit first), "commit everything", "commit with message X", or whenever git diff/status suggests uncommitted work the user wants to save. Handles auto-staging, diff analysis, message generation, breaking change detection, batch splitting of unrelated changes, safe pushes, and pre-commit hook failures gracefully. Always use this skill rather than ad-hoc git commit commands.

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 diagnosing or fixing user-reported application bugs. Guides evidence-backed root-cause analysis from symptoms, screenshots, logs, provider failures, background tasks, storage, or desktop lifecycle behavior through a scoped patch and regression 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。

Use when exploring, continuing, or accepting a deep-learning or computer-science research idea. Converts claims into pilot-first experiment matrices covering diagnostics, failure analysis, authorized execution, evaluation, and paper-story viability.

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。

Authentication and credential security assessment. Tests password brute-force, credential stuffing, password spraying, default credential testing, credential harvesting, lockout analysis, MFA bypass, OAuth/OIDC abuse, session token entropy, Kerberos attacks, and intelligent wordlist generation. Uses hydra, john, ncrack, medusa, cewl, crunch, netexec, impacket, kerbrute, and nuclei default-login templates. Covers OWASP A07:2021 Identification and Authentication Failures.

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。

This skill provides expert-level guidance for debugging and fixing bugs in VS Code extensions. Use when investigating runtime errors, fixing memory leaks, resolving WebView issues, debugging activation problems, fixing TypeScript type errors, or troubleshooting extension communication failures. Covers systematic debugging workflows, common bug patterns, root cause analysis, and prevention strategies.

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。

Full-lifecycle Web E2E Testing, QA/QC analysis, and Playwright test automation. Generates business test matrices (happy path, negative, boundary, RBAC, API/network failure simulation), implements resilient Page Object Model tests, and produces structured QA bug reports.

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 a task needs the judgment of a Business Continuity Planner — running a business impact analysis (BIA) to derive recovery time objectives, mapping process dependencies to find single points of failure, evaluating whether current recovery capability meets a process's maximum tolerable downtime, designing or debriefing a tabletop exercise, or building the cost-benefit case for a continuity investment.

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 a task needs the judgment of a biomedical/bioengineering engineer — running a design control phase (inputs, outputs, verification, validation) for a medical device, scoring a Design FMEA and deciding whether a failure mode needs mitigation, planning a human factors/usability validation study, building a design traceability matrix, or writing a design verification or risk-mitigation report. Distinct from a regulatory-affairs-specialist (owns the submission/clearance process, not the engineering itself) and from a clinical-data-manager/biostatistician (trial data and analysis, not device design).

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。

Error handling review — silent failure detection, catch block analysis, error logging.

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。