「rspec」の検索結果

Multi-perspective deliberation framework for complex scientific questions

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。

Optimizes Active Record queries, implements Turbo Frames and Streams, configures Action Cable WebSockets, sets up Sidekiq workers, and writes RSpec test suites for Rails 7+.

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 clause-by-clause NDA review from Recipient or Discloser perspective. Produces issue log with redlines, fallbacks, rationales, owners, deadlines. Use when reviewing NDAs for negotiation or approval.

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。

Assembles board and investor update decks by pulling perspectives from all C-suite roles. Use when preparing board meetings, investor updates, quarterly business reviews, or fundraising narratives.

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。

Guide to review incoming one-way (unilateral) commercial NDAs in a jurisdiction-agnostic way, from either a Recipient or Discloser perspective (user-selected), producing a clause-by-clause issue log with preferred redlines, fallbacks, rationales, owners, and deadlines.

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。

NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) contract analysis for NCAA student-athletes from the athlete's perspective. Use when user says 'review this NIL contract', 'analyze this NIL deal', 'check this athlete agreement', 'review my NIL agreement', or uploads a PDF NIL contract for review. Identifies red flags, missing protections, and compliance issues. Produces a structured review memorandum with negotiation positions. Do NOT use for general contract review, employment agreements, non-NIL endorsements, or brand-side deal 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。

Assesses a legal argument, submission, or piece of structured reasoning from the perspective of a judge reading it cold under time pressure. Produces a structured seven-part assessment: what the case appears to be about, immediate points of confusion, what feels strong, what feels weak, what is assumed but unproved, a provisional confidence level (low/medium/high), and what would be needed to persuade. The skill does not rewrite, improve, or attack the argument — it tells you how it actually lands on a sceptical, experienced reader with no prior context. Works on skeleton arguments, witness statements, letters before action, position statements, academic articles, and non-legal structured reasoning.

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 legal document against legal design principles. Scores the document on six pillars: language patterns (bureaucratese, archaisms, passive voice, nominalization), readability (Flesch Reading Ease and language-specific equivalents), structure and navigation, hidden conditions (material obligations buried away from their headings), statutory duplication (restating the law instead of citing it), and visual hierarchy where layout is available. Assessment-only; does not rewrite the document. Works on English, French, and German documents, inferring the applicable jurisdiction from the document's language and textual signals: governing-law clause, statute citations, party addresses. Use when a user shares a legal document (contract, NDA, T&C, privacy policy, internal policy) asking how good the drafting is from a legal design perspective, whether it is readable, whether it contains buried clauses or restates the law, or how it scores on Flesch / LIX / Amstad / Kandel-Moles readability metrics.

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, draft, or redline a Data Processing Agreement (DPA / Auftragsverarbeitungsvertrag / AVV) under Art. 28 GDPR, or prepare a Joint Controller Arrangement under Art. 26 GDPR. Supports bilingual output (DE/EN), both controller- and processor-side perspectives, and two review depths — quick (Art. 28(3)(a)–(h) coverage) and negotiation-grade (clause-by-clause risk scoring).

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。

Produces detailed law-school case briefs of United States judicial opinions in a fixed nine-section structure: memory jogger, facts, procedural history, judicial votes, holding, opinion-by-opinion analysis, five future-application hypotheticals, critique, and verified key quotations. Also builds vote tables, cross-case consistency tables, perspective-based critiques, and LaTeX in article, Beamer and casebook-chapter formats. Use whenever someone asks to brief a case, analyse or explain an opinion, summarise a decision for students, generate hypotheticals from a holding, critique a judgment, tabulate how justices voted, or convert case analysis to LaTeX. Triggers on "brief this case", "case brief", "explain the holding", "what did the court hold", "hypotheticals based on", "critique this opinion", "vote table", "Beamer presentation", "chapter brief", and on any reference to a judicial opinion or Supreme Court decision in a teaching context. Requires web search to verify quotations, votes and holdings.

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。

When you want multiple expert perspectives on a founder/operator question — a simulated board of advisors (Jason Fried, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Jensen Huang, Bob Iger, Paul Graham, Naval Ravikant, Sara Blakely). Bring a real decision — "should I raise prices?", "hire my first employee?", "raise or bootstrap?", "kill this project?" — and the council weighs in through documented frameworks, surfaces disagreements, and synthesizes a recommendation. Also use for 'maker council,' 'board of advisors,' 'what would Bezos do,' 'what would Jason Fried say,' 'channel Naval,' 'ask the council,' or how a famous founder would approach a problem. Optional live-research pass via deep-research / watch-video / last30days. Marketing questions go to marketing-skills' marketing-council. Archives to ~/.config/makerskills/maker-council/archive/. To commit to a direction, hand off 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。

Build students' capacity to compare accounts across multiple historical sources — identifying agreements, contradictions, and gaps. Use when students treat individual documents as complete answers rather than partial perspectives.

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 students' capacity to read historical documents closely — attending to word choice, tone, and rhetoric as evidence of perspective. Use when students summarise sources without analysing language.

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。

Search Experience Optimization: reads Google SERPs backwards to detect page-type mismatches, derives user stories from search intent signals, and scores pages from multiple persona perspectives. Identifies why well-optimized pages fail to rank by analyzing what Google rewards for each keyword. Use when user says "SXO", "search experience", "page type mismatch", "SERP analysis", "user story", "persona scoring", "why isn't my page ranking", "intent mismatch", or "wireframe".

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 crafted, highly detailed, interactive isometric SVG figures that explain a technical idea as a real physical object (a test rig, a dial gauge, a cabinet of drawers, a plotter, a lock), with many small precise solid parts, four-tone shading, correct painter's order, a framed card with title, hint and live readout, and calm eased motion. Use this whenever someone wants an isometric illustration, an explanatory diagram or figure for docs, a blog post, a landing page or an article, a "Linear-style" or "premium" technical drawing, an interactive explainer, or an SVG that shows how a system, algorithm or component works, even if they never say "isometric". Works framework-free (TypeScript/JS that writes SVG and HTML) and in React/Next.js, and can add realistic WebGL shaders (fire, exhaust, water, caustics, lamp light) that live inside the drawing in the same isometric perspective.

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。

多视角深度分析。用多个 Sub-agent 分别扮演不同思维框架的顾问，对同一份素材做独立分析，然后交叉汇总共识与分歧，产出结构化诊断报告。当用户说"帮我多视角分析"、"多维分析"、"用多个视角看看"、"帮我诊断一下"时触发。

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。

从用户、业务负责人、一线执行者、技术负责人、公司经营者五种角色视角交叉分析问题，识别各方目标、约束、风险和冲突，并综合成有优先级的判断与行动建议。适用于产品决策、技术方案、项目复盘、业务难题、职业判断，以及用户要求“换几个视角看看”“考虑得更全面”“用五种视角分析”时。不用于单纯事实查询、只需单一专业结论或必须由真实利益相关者参与的正式调研。

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。

Tell the agent to zoom out and give broader context or a higher-level perspective. Use when you're unfamiliar with a section of code or need to understand how it fits into the bigger picture.

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。

Enhanced academic paper review response workflow with Agy/CLI collaborative analysis and multi-perspective discussion. Produces structured rebuttal documents with evidence-based strategies. Triggers on "rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "review response", "审稿回复".

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。

Perform a dual-lens critical review of the specification and plan from both product strategy and engineering risk perspectives before implementation.

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。

Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.

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。

VP Engineering perspective - org design (team topologies), process improvement, cross-team dependencies, engineering culture, OKRs, incident management maturity, platform strategy, DX optimization, release management at scale

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 and rewrite evaluation/numeric claims to ensure they carry minimal protocol context (task + metric + constraint) and avoid underspecified model naming.

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。

Assessment: read-only inspection, codebase overview, value analysis, health checks, ADR consultation, decision analysis, multi-perspective critique.

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。