「stress」の検索結果

Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.

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。

Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".

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。

Synthesises the current conversation context into a Product Requirements Document and publishes it to GitHub (as a comment on a referenced issue, or a new issue). Synthesises from context; does not interview. TRIGGER when: the conversation has produced enough understanding of a feature and the user wants it captured as a PRD. DO NOT TRIGGER when: a single small issue is enough → creating-issues; the idea has not been stress-tested yet → grilling-ideas first; 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。

Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.

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。

Activate this skill when BenchmarkDotNet (BDN) is involved in the task — creating, running, configuring, or reviewing BDN benchmarks. Also activate when microbenchmarking .NET code would be useful and BenchmarkDotNet is the likely tool. Consider activating when answering a .NET performance question requires measurement and BenchmarkDotNet may be needed. Covers microbenchmark design, BDN configuration and project setup, how to run BDN microbenchmarks efficiently and effectively, and using BDN for side-by-side performance comparisons. Do NOT use for profiling/tracing .NET code (dotnet-trace, PerfView), production telemetry, or load/stress testing (Crank, k6).

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。

Brainstorm evidence-backed options for what to build, or stress-test an idea. Use when: deciding what to build next, comparing options or testing an idea.

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 a product strategy and stress-tests your moat, then writes a one-page strategy doc (diagnosis, where to play, how to win, guiding policy, coherent actions, moat verdicts). Use for 'we need a product strategy', 'is our moat real', 'do we have a competitive advantage', 'where should we play', 'defensibility', 'should we expand into X', 'our roadmap has no strategy', or 'write a product vision'. Draws on 909 insights from 236 Lenny's Podcast guests incl. Roger Martin, Richard Rumelt and Hamilton Helmer.

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。

Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.

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。

Argues the strongest honest case against a decision, plan, belief, hire, pricing move, strategy, or piece of work the user is leaning toward. Steelmans the other side, ranks at most three objections by consequence, runs a short pre-mortem, credits what the user got right, and ends with what would have to be true for their choice to work. Calibrated and collegial, never combative; says plainly when the position is strong. Use whenever the user says "play devil's advocate", "argue the other side", "poke holes in this", "what am I missing", "am I making a mistake", "talk me out of it", "stress-test this idea", "tell me why this is a bad idea", or asks for pushback on something they have mostly decided. Supports gentle, standard, and hard intensity. Not for interrogating requirements before a build (grill-the-brief) or staging a multi-persona debate (debate-simulator).

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。

Before showing the user any substantive GTM deliverable (positioning, value prop, homepage, launch post, pricing, sales script, the brief or roadmap), stress-test it against the standard as an independent critic, because the agent that wrote it is the worst judge of whether it is good. Use as a gate right before presenting work, or when the user asks whether something is actually strong.

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 researcher is choosing, framing, refining, or stress-testing a research question, hypothesis, thesis topic, project idea, grant direction, paper angle, or stalled research direction.

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。

Expert guidance for systematic backtesting of trading strategies. Use when developing, testing, stress-testing, or validating quantitative trading strategies. Covers "beating ideas to death" methodology, parameter robustness testing, slippage modeling, bias prevention, and interpreting backtest results. Applicable when user asks about backtesting, strategy validation, robustness testing, avoiding overfitting, or systematic trading development.

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 a feature specification from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not plan a restructure of code that already exists — use plan-a-change. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features — use project-documentation. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not research open-ended options before there is a feature to specify — use research. Does not map the bounded contexts of existing code — use ddd-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。

Builds a feature specification from scratch with plan-a-feature and publishes it to a user-specified Confluence location, posting the spec as a parent page and each companion artifact (decision log, team findings, technical notes) as a child page beneath it. Use when the user wants a new feature planned, designed, scoped, or specified AND posted to a Confluence space or page. Requires a configured Atlassian MCP server. Does not plan to local files only — use plan-a-feature. Does not publish an arbitrary existing markdown file — use markdown-to-confluence. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features to Confluence — use project-documentation-to-confluence.

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 a feature implementation plan from an existing feature specification (or equivalent context) through a facilitated team conversation. Use when the user wants to plan how to implement, build, deliver, or ship a feature that has already been specified. Does not specify what the feature should do — use plan-a-feature first. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not refine or stress-test an already-written plan — use iterative-plan-review. Runs its resolution rounds to completion and holds its questions until after they finish; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

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。

Sharpens and stress-tests an existing plan file through multiple codebase-grounded review passes, editing it in place and recording every finding and iteration in cross-referenced companion files. Use this skill whenever the user wants to iterate on, refine, tighten, or improve a plan. Also use it when the user asks to verify, validate, or confirm feasibility of an approach. Does not implement plan steps, write test plans, review code, or investigate bugs, and does not generate new plans from scratch — use plan-a-feature for a new plan. Runs its review rounds to completion without pausing between them; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

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。

Produce a plain-language manual test plan from the context supplied to it — an executive summary, a high-level list of named tests, and a detail section per test with the steps a person follows by hand and the outcomes they should expect. Use when you want to create, draft, generate, or outline a manual test plan, manual QA steps, hands-on verification steps, or an acceptance walkthrough for a feature, change, branch, plan, or PR. When the plan holds more than five tests and at least two natural categories emerge, both the test list and the detail sections are organized under plain-language categories. When nothing in the supplied context can be manually tested, it says so and asks for more context instead of producing a document. Does not analyze code for automated test coverage gaps — use automated-test-planning. Does not write test code — use tdd. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-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。

Turn vague or partially formed AI, computer-science, data-driven, and engineering-method research directions into evidence-grounded, falsifiable, paper-ready Research Idea Briefs through heuristic questioning, staged confirmation, literature positioning, novelty attack, and method-figure planning. Use when the user needs to clarify a research idea, formalize inputs/outputs/objectives/constraints, frame background and motivation, select 3-5 anchor papers, identify a defensible gap, derive 2-3 contributions, stress-test novelty, or design an input-to-output method framework and core-paper figure. Also trigger on requests such as 明确科研 idea、启发式梳理 idea、互动追问科研问题、梳理论文创新点、定义研究任务、找对标论文、把研究方向变成论文方案、画方法框架图. Do not use as the primary workflow for running experiments, exhaustive systematic reviews, drafting full manuscript sections, or polishing finished prose.

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 institutional-grade comparable company analyses with operating metrics, valuation multiples, and statistical benchmarking in Excel/spreadsheet format. **Perfect for:** - Public company valuation (M&A, investment analysis) - Benchmarking performance vs. industry peers - Pricing IPOs or funding rounds - Identifying valuation outliers (over/under-valued) - Supporting investment committee presentations - Creating sector overview reports **Not ideal for:** - Private companies without comparable public peers - Highly diversified conglomerates - Distressed/bankrupt companies - Pre-revenue startups - Companies with unique business models

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。

Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".

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。

Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".

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。

Weekly product-level commercial tracking — TRx/NRx with current/4-wk/12-wk share and YoY, launch curves overlaid with same-class analogs plus a consensus-implied trajectory, LOE/biosimilar erosion series, GTN/net-price stress brackets, and per-row data-caveat discipline. Use to track any launched drug, biologic, device, or vaccine against its class and consensus.

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。

Think and work like an expert Mechanical Design Engineer. Use when a task calls for Mechanical Design Engineer judgment. Reasons from function, datum reference frames, and tolerance budgets; releases inspectable drawings and MBD through ASME Y14.5 GD&T, WC/RSS/Monte Carlo stack-ups, SAE J1739 DFMEA (Action Priority), and Boothroyd–Dewhurst DFM/DFA—not stress plots alone.

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。

Think and work like an expert MEMS Engineer. Use when a task calls for MEMS Engineer judgment. Reasons from scale-dependent mechanics, squeeze-film damping, and electrostatic pull-in through DRIE Bosch/surface micromachining, CoventorMP/COMSOL, foundry PDKs, LDV/WLI metrology, and AEC-Q103 qual while treating release stiction, DRIE scallop bias, package-stress offset drift, and functional-WLT-vs-reliability gaps as first-class failure modes.

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。