「iter」の検索結果

Systematic improvement of existing agents through performance analysis, prompt engineering, and continuous iteration.

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 users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation 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。

Use when finding literature, datasets, domain facts, citation details or licensed figure references.

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。

Vendor certification acceptance criteria and equivalence mapping. Covers ISO 27701, SOC 2 Privacy, APEC CBPR, EU Code of Conduct evaluation, certification scope analysis, gap supplementation requirements, and cross-framework equivalence assessment.

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。

Conducts pre-DPIA threshold screening to determine whether a full Data Protection Impact Assessment is required under GDPR Article 35. Applies the EDPB WP248rev.01 nine-criteria test, national supervisory authority blacklists, and organisational risk appetite to produce a documented screening decision. Keywords: threshold screening, DPIA trigger, pre-DPIA, WP248, Article 35(1), blacklist, screening decision.

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。

Guides privacy program maturity assessment using the AICPA/CIPT Privacy Maturity Model with five levels: Ad Hoc, Repeating, Defined, Managed, and Optimized. Covers assessment methodology across ten privacy domains, scoring criteria, gap analysis, maturity roadmap generation, and benchmarking against industry peers. Keywords: privacy maturity, AICPA, maturity model, assessment, roadmap, benchmarking.

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。

Implements the right to be forgotten in search engines under GDPR Article 17 and the CJEU Google Spain ruling (C-131/12). Covers delisting request procedures, criteria assessment balancing privacy against public interest, and geographic scope determination. Activate for right to be forgotten, search delisting, Google Spain, de-indexing queries.

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。

Conducts Privacy Impact Assessment for large-scale systematic monitoring under GDPR Article 35(3)(c). Covers CCTV and video surveillance, employee monitoring, location tracking, internet monitoring, and behavioural analytics. Applies EDPB WP248rev.01 criteria for systematic monitoring of publicly accessible areas. Keywords: DPIA, large-scale monitoring, CCTV, employee monitoring, systematic monitoring, surveillance, location tracking.

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。

Guides GDPR certification mechanism implementation per Articles 42-43 including accredited certification body selection, certification criteria per EDPB guidelines, certification scope, periodic audit requirements, seal and mark usage rules, and relationship to codes of conduct. Covers EDPB/ENISA certification framework and national accreditation. Keywords: GDPR certification, Article 42, Article 43, certification body, EDPB, seal, mark, accreditation.

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。

Applying the ePrivacy Directive Article 5(3) strictly necessary exemption to classify cookies that do not require consent. Covers exemption criteria, functionality cookies, load balancing, session state, and non-exempt categories with regulatory guidance from EDPB and national DPAs.

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。

Guides appointment of GDPR Article 27 EU representative for non-EU controllers or processors. Covers criteria, responsibilities, and documentation. Activate when a non-EU entity processes EU data. Keywords: EU representative, Article 27, non-EU controller, territorial scope.

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。

Compares PIA/DPIA methodologies: CNIL PIA tool, ICO DPIA template, NIST Privacy Framework, and ISO 29134. Provides methodology selection criteria based on regulatory jurisdiction, organisation maturity, processing complexity, and resource availability. Covers regulatory acceptance, tool features, and cross-methodology mapping. Keywords: PIA methodology, CNIL, ICO, NIST Privacy Framework, ISO 29134, DPIA comparison, assessment.

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。

Guides assessment of third-country adequacy decisions under GDPR Article 45 for international data transfers. Covers the current EC adequacy decisions list, adequacy assessment criteria, partial adequacy handling, and monitoring of adequacy decision reviews. Keywords: adequacy decision, Article 45, third country, adequate protection, EC adequacy list.

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。

Coordinates credit monitoring and identity theft protection services for individuals affected by a data breach. Covers vendor selection criteria, enrollment logistics, coverage duration (12-24 months), identity theft insurance options, communication to affected individuals, and enrollment rate tracking. Keywords: credit monitoring, identity protection, breach response, Experian, enrollment, identity theft insurance.

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。

Guides audit follow-up and verification processes including follow-up scheduling, remediation effectiveness testing, finding closure criteria, re-testing procedures, status reporting, and escalation of unremediated findings. Implements IIA Standard 2500 monitoring requirements and ISO 19011 follow-up guidance for privacy audit engagements. Keywords: audit follow-up, verification testing, finding closure, remediation effectiveness, re-testing, follow-up audit.

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 work collaboratively in reviewable pieces, handing each piece back for review before starting the next, so the person stays in the lead and steers while the work happens instead of reviewing a finished result. Use when someone says to pair with them on something, asks to collaborate rather than direct, wants to review as it goes, or wants to guide the work piece by piece — on code, on a design decision, or on writing. For a test-first build it runs tdd, for restructuring it runs refactor, for an interface contract it runs design-an-api, and for plan work it runs iterative-plan-review or plan-implementation, each collaboratively; invoke any of those directly instead to run it straight through without pausing. Does not pace someone through code that already exists and builds nothing — use code-walkthrough. Does not explain, summarize, or research something instead of producing it — use code-overview or research.

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。

Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural assessment.

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。

Break a trusted implementation plan (or other provided context) into independently-grabbable, atomic work items, written to a single work-items.md file. Use when the user wants to convert a plan into work items, create implementation tickets or tasks, divide a plan into work units, or break the plan down into grabbable pieces. Do not use when there is no implementation plan yet or the plan is not yet trusted — use plan-implementation to produce the plan or iterative-plan-review to harden it first. Does not sequence work into demoable delivery phases — use plan-a-phased-build for that. Does not write code — use tdd to implement a work item.

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。

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。

Review an implemented RFC in a fresh context against its acceptance criteria, RULES.md and the test plan, and save the review to reviews/.

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 PRD.md into FEATURES.md: permanent feature IDs, MoSCoW priorities, acceptance criteria and the PRD requirement each feature comes from.

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。