「invest」の検索結果

既存コード・既存関数・既存モジュールの暗黙契約を抽出するスキル。 戻り値型、副作用、例外、前提条件、境界条件、環境依存挙動を確認し、 reuse前のリスクを可視化する。名前やコメントではなく実際の挙動から 契約を読み取り、不一致を分類し、再利用可否を判定する。 Use when reusing legacy code, verifying actual behavior of existing functions, or extracting implicit contracts before implementation. Covers: hidden contract, implicit contract, reuse risk, legacy behavior, 暗黙契約, 既存資産調査. Analyzes return types, side effects, exceptions, preconditions, boundary conditions, and environment-dependent behavior.

Android device offensive security, forensic extraction, and mobile app exploitation. Use this whenever the user needs to: break into or bypass the lock screen of an Android phone, extract data from a seized Android device for evidence, analyze or reverse-engineer an APK to find vulnerabilities, intercept communications on an Android device, exploit Android apps via deeplinks, steal crypto wallets or app data, set up rogue WiFi to target a phone, or plan any mobile device investigation or penetration test. Also trigger when the user mentions Android forensics, mobile pentesting, law enforcement phone extraction, device exploitation, WhatsApp or Telegram extraction from a phone, Android app reversing, CVE research for Android, or needing a chain of custody for mobile evidence. Even if the user describes the scenario casually or in another language, if they need to gain access to or pull data from an Android phone, use this 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。

Typosquat and malicious-package detection across installed dependencies (or a single prospective addition) — cross-checks AI-malware family intelligence, package-name similarity to known popular packages, low maintainer-health signals. Use when auditing a freshly-onboarded repo, vetting a single suspicious package, gating CI on supply-chain risk, or investigating an incident.

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 pi (coding-agent) session JSONL and ego-benchmark-harness run artifacts to explain slow or failed individual tasks, compare execution-path differences between agents or browser tools, and count tool calls and error types. Use this skill whenever users ask to analyze a pi session, explain why a task was slow or failed, compare two runs, investigate an error, locate the session corresponding to tasks.jsonl, inspect an agent execution path, count tool calls, analyze a run ID, or perform any forensic or retrospective analysis of JSONL under ~/.pi/agent/sessions/ or agent-home/.pi/agent/sessions/.

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 Codex provider rollout JSONL and ego-benchmark-harness run artifacts to identify slow or failed individual tasks, tool retries, token/cost anomalies, and differences in agent execution paths. Use when users ask to analyze a Codex session or rollout, explain why a Codex task was slow or failed, inspect a Codex provider execution trace, compare Codex runs, count function_call or tool output events, or investigate agent-home/.codex/sessions.

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 the user starts a non-trivial coding/building task in Claude Code (e.g. "帮我做个 X", "help me build Y", "add feature Z", "搭一个 Z"). Layers an AI-native pedagogical coat over normal coding work — surfaces implicit assumptions in user intent, annotates non-trivial design decisions inline with brief concept-scaffolding for terms the user may not know, and replaces "should I run it?" handoffs with rigorous AI self-verification plus a clean list of what only the user can verify. Skip for pure Q&A, single-line edits, read-only investigation, or refactoring along an existing pattern.

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。

Load when diagnosing a bug, exception, regression, wrong result, failing flow, or unknown root cause in repository code using callers/callees, execution flows, recent changes, and impact analysis; not for implementing a known fix without investigation.

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。

Time-boxed throwaway investigation to answer one hard question. Use when facing technical uncertainty before committing to a frontier item or scoped slice — the output is knowledge, not production code.

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。

Start work on a Jira ticket by fetching ticket details, creating a properly named feature branch, and beginning codebase investigation. Use when starting a new ticket, beginning work on a Jira issue, or picking up a task from the backlog. Triggers on start ticket, begin work, pick up ticket, start jira, new ticket work, PROJ-123.

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。

Knowledge base from DOE Systems Engineering Methodology (SEM) Version 3 — the DOE SDLC for IT investments. Use for staged systems lifecycle planning through maintenance, Stage Exits, Structured Walkthroughs, In-Stage Assessments, requirements traceability, and CMM-aligned process discipline. Covers SEM3 (2002) guidance only; does not replace modern DevSecOps tooling standards, DOE O 413.3B capital-asset directives, or current CIO policy supersessions.

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。

Knowledge base from the FAA AMS Lifecycle V&V Guidelines (verification and validation), Version 3.0, dated April 2017. Use for applying verification and validation across the FAA Acquisition Management System (AMS) lifecycle: the verify-vs-validate distinction (built right vs. right thing), the work-product/component/product tiers, the nine V&V planning elements, the four method catalogs (Appendix C), decision-point-gated V&V (SASP, CRD, Investment Analysis, Solution Implementation, In-Service Management), the Appendix B document checklists (PRD/APB/ISPD/PMP), and the DT/OT/IOA test triad. Scope limits: this is an FAA acquisition-V&V doctrine, NOT a general SE process model, requirements-engineering manual, or test-design textbook. It borrows its core V&V definitions from CMMI v1.2 (SEI, paraphrased) and presumes the surrounding AMS lifecycle (see the FAA SEM pack); its phase tables are policy snapshots as of April 2017 and it is thin on detailed test methods, tool specifics, and anything outside FAA acquisition governance.

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。

Knowledge base from the GAO Agile Assessment Guide (GAO-24-105506, 2023). Use for assessing and managing Agile software development in federal programs: the Agile Manifesto and framework family (Scrum, Kanban, XP, SAFe, DA, DSDM, Lean, DevOps); the three adoption perspectives (team dynamics, program operations, organization environment); requirements decomposition (epics, features, user stories, INVEST, MoSCoW, definition of done); Agile-aware federal contracting (FAR, modular contracting, SOO/PWS/SOW, product owner vs. COR); program monitoring and control (WBS, cost, schedule, EVM at the feature level); Agile metrics (velocity, lead/cycle time, CFD, burn charts); and the auditor's key-question bank. Oversight- and acquisition-oriented: it tells you how to *assess and govern* Agile programs, not how to code. Thin on hands-on engineering practice, deep cost/schedule checklists (see gao-cost, gao-schedule), and any non-US-federal context.

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。

Procedimiento estructurado de 6 pasos para mejorar, renovar o reconstruir pipelines existentes, carpetas de proyectos individuales, estructuras de documentación o stacks de software. Direccionable como "pipeline optimizer" (para pipelines temáticos completos, p. ej. de software, investigación o desarrollo de videojuegos) o "project-folder optimizer" (para carpetas de proyectos individuales dentro de un pipeline, p. ej. una herramienta de software o proyecto de artículo académico). Se activa ante tareas como "mejorar pipeline X", "optimizar el stack", "reconstruir Y", "renovación", "refactorización de pipeline", "limpiar carpeta de proyecto", "mejorar estructura de carpetas", "unificar convenciones", "consolidación de documentación", "integrar en sistema existente" o cualquier intervención sustancial en estructuras establecidas. Proporciona análisis del estado actual, aclaración del propósito, boceto del estado ideal, plan de brechas, identificación empírica de puntos de dolor y reevaluación con subagentes limpios. Previene estándares paralelos, duplicación y rupturas en el pipeline.

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 a DRAFT capital expenditure request pack from the requester's inputs: business need, options including do nothing, costs exactly as provided, benefits as stated, risks, assumptions, budget status and the approvals route read from the organisation's own delegation of authority, with UNKNOWN for every missing figure, date or name. Use when the user asks to "prepare a capex request", "draft the business case for this equipment", "fill in the capital request form", "structure this investment proposal" or "what approvals does this spend need". Do not use for a board or committee decision paper, use board-paper-skeleton instead; for an IT change approval, use change-request-pack; to pressure-test a finished business case, use cfo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Builds a DRAFT board paper skeleton from the sponsor's inputs: purpose, recommendation as the sponsor states it, options including do nothing, risks, financials exactly as provided, authority to decide and the decision sought, with every claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so the sponsor sees what still needs support. Use when the user asks to "draft a board paper", "structure the committee paper", "prepare the decision paper for the investment committee", "skeleton the board memo" or "what goes in the paper for the audit committee". Do not use for a pre-read or briefing pack with no resolution sought, use executive-briefing-pack instead; to record a decision already taken in a discussion, use decision-memo-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Bring past diagnoses to a bug before fixing it, record the new root-cause hypothesis, and close it as confirmed or refuted once the fix is verified. Use when a bug could come from more than one layer, or looks like something seen before.

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。

Manage Vercel deployments, projects, environment variables, domains, DNS, and build/runtime logs via REST API. Use when the user wants to deploy, check a deploy status, rotate env vars, attach custom domains, or investigate failed builds without the Vercel MCP installed.

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。

特定の日本株1銘柄について、企業概要・セグメント経済性・財務トレンド・株主構成・ガバナンス・リスク要因・競争優位の仮説・バリュエーション素材までを網羅した総合リサーチレポートを作る時に使う。「トヨタを分析して」「〇〇の株を調べて」のように1社を深掘りする指示で発火する。

特定企業について、事業の質・価格と価値・リスク反証の3つの視点で討論形式の検討をしたい時に使う。「〇〇を多角的に検討して」「賛否両論で議論して」のような、単一の結論ではなく視点の対立を見たい指示で発火する。売買判断そのもの（買うべきか）への回答は目的ではなく、論点の整理までを行う。

- Investigate an email address — MX and syntactic validation, Gravatar lookup, corporate email-format inference, breach exposure, and full mail-header analysis covering the Received chain, Message-ID and SPF, DKIM and DMARC results.

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 findings into a defensible intelligence product — BLUF key judgements, standardised estimative probability language, per-claim sourcing with timestamps and archived copies, separated observation, inference and assessment,… Use when writing an intelligence report, due-diligence memo, evidence pack or executive summary, or when asked to write up an investigation so it survives challenge

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。

- Investigate a phone number — E.164 normalisation with libphonenumber, phoneinfoga scanning, carrier and line-type identification, VoIP and burner detection, messaging-app registration checks, and reverse-lookup and caller-ID sources.

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。

Score how much attention a person deserves: classify them (investor, engineer, student, partner, community, noise, personal), estimate the value they can bring in the next 90 days, their temperature, and the next move. Triggers: /worth, how valuable is <who>, who is <who>, should I reply to <who>, score this person, score this lead.

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。