「risk」の検索結果

Design product experiments to test hypotheses. Use when the user says "run an experiment", "A/B test this", "build-measure-learn", "validate this assumption", "test this hypothesis", "we don't know if this will work", "minimum viable test", "lean experiment", or wants to reduce risk before fully building a feature - even if they don't explicitly say "experiment".

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 product discovery to identify what to build. Use when the user says "product discovery", "how do I know what to build", "validate this idea", "talk to customers", "are we building the right thing", "discovery process", or wants to reduce the risk of building something users don't want - even if they don't say "discovery".

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 psychological safety in your team using Simon Sinek's Leaders Eat Last Circle of Safety model and Amy Edmondson's research. Use when a leader says "my team doesn't speak up", "people are afraid to fail", "nobody challenges bad ideas", "people only tell me what I want to hear", "I want my team to take more risks", "there's a blame culture", "people hide mistakes", or "I want to create a safe environment". Also trigger when someone describes a team where postmortems turn into blame sessions, where people stay quiet in meetings and then vent privately, where mistakes are hidden until they become crises, or where the same person speaks 80% of the time in every meeting. Psychological safety is not about comfort - it is the condition that makes high performance possible.

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 a customer health scorecard across usage, engagement, adoption, NPS, support load, and financial risk. Use when user says "health score", "customer health", "build a scorecard", "how healthy is this account", "customer scoring model", "green yellow red", "health dashboard", or "account health framework" - even if they don't say "scorecard" explicitly. Applies to CSMs building account health models or CS leaders standardizing health tracking across the team.

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 deciding WHERE to point SEO effort, not how to write a page. Triggers: a new site or brand with no rankings and no authority ("cold start", "starting from zero", "nobody knows us"), deciding what to double down on, a page or cluster that ranks but earns nothing, hunting emerging or newly-coined keywords before competitors arrive, "should we build a cluster or one page", "what do we write next", "we get impressions but no clicks", "our traffic plateaued despite publishing", whether to chase a head term at all, or turning any of it into recurring automation. Also use when asked why an SEO effort stalled despite consistent output. NOT for writing an article, keyword expansion mechanics, or auditing a single tactic for penalty risk.

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 an academic paper (PDF, LaTeX, pasted text, thesis chapter or technical disclosure) into a Chinese invention patent application draft — 说明书摘要、摘要附图、权利要求书、说明书、说明书附图 — delivered as DOCX/PDF with black-and-white patent drawings, plus a separate drafting-notes file covering novelty/disclosure risk, claim layout and claim-to-paper support. Use whenever the user wants to 论文转专利, 写专利/专利申请书/专利交底书, draft or review 权利要求书, write a 说明书, make 专利附图, or check a patent draft against its source paper, even if they only say "帮我把这篇论文写成专利".

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 a source-grounded paid-advertising audit for one or more of Google, Meta, YouTube, LinkedIn, TikTok, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, and X. Use for full ad checks, account health reviews, paid-media diagnostics, partial audits after authentication or worker failure, missing-platform weighting, beta-feature eligibility and scoring, spend audits, tracking audits, or prioritized opportunities and risks.

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 feature work with high overbuilding risk. Use for new behavior, product slices, or integrations where repository reuse, strict scope, and an explicit stop condition matter.

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 security alert triage in Google SecOps. Use when investigating and triaging security alerts, determining false positives vs. true positives, assessing entity risk, adjusting alert severity or priority, and closing or escalating alerts and cases. Don't use for deep multi-hop incident investigations across host timelines (use secops-investigate), proactive threat hunting or retroactive IoC sweeps (use secops-hunt), or authoring new detection rules (use secops-detection-engineering).

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。

Queries and retrieves active security findings, external exposures, toxic combinations, vulnerabilities, threats, and sensitive data risks from Google Cloud Security Command Center. Use when retrieving details for a security finding by its name, validating finding scope (e.g., verifying findingClass is TOXIC_COMBINATION, VULNERABILITY, EXTERNAL_EXPOSURE, or THREAT), or fetching finding details for triage. Don't use to draft remediations, apply patches, or execute configurations.

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, configures, and hardens workload-level security controls for Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) applications and namespaces. Covers running cluster security audits (`audit_cluster.sh`), configuring Workload Identity Federation (impersonation, KSA/GSA binding, and pod setup), enforcing Network Policies (default-deny and Dataplane V2 logging), isolating high-risk pods inside GKE Sandbox (`gVisor`), enforcing Pod Security Standards (`restricted` labeling), and mounting Secret Manager secrets via CSI (`SecretProviderClass`). Use when auditing cluster security posture, isolating namespaces, applying pod security standards, setting up Workload Identity, or configuring network policies and secret volume mounts. Don't use for cluster-wide control plane security, RBAC hardening, Binary Authorization, Shielded Nodes, or enabling platform-level GKE add-ons (use gke-platform-security instead).

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。

Phase 8 of the SRS workflow. Generates an improvement report covering deferred features, technical risks, validation warnings, and next-version candidates. No word limit.

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。

Phase 8 of the SRS workflow. Generates an improvement report covering deferred features, technical risks, validation warnings, and next-version candidates. No word limit.

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 this skill when defining AI governance policies, designing human oversight workflows, documenting bias mitigation strategies, or meeting regulatory transparency requirements for Salesforce AI features. Trigger keywords: responsible AI, AI bias, AI audit trail, AI transparency, human-in-the-loop, AI risk inventory, AI disclosure. NOT for the MLOps pipeline or Policy-as-Code engine architecture — use architect/ai-governance-architecture. NOT for Trust Layer technical configuration — use agentforce/einstein-trust-layer.

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, score, and prioritize Salesforce AI use cases before any implementation begins — opportunity identification, Impact-Effort matrix scoring, feasibility evaluation across Technical/Operational/Data/Risk dimensions, and ROI framing. NOT for the license checks and enablement steps once a use case is approved — use agentforce/agentforce-service-ai-setup or agentforce/agentforce-sales-ai-setup. NOT for making the data model AI-ready — use architect/ai-ready-data-architecture.

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。

Detects force unwraps, force casts, force try, and other crash-prone Swift patterns that can cause unrecoverable crashes during App Store review, violating Guideline 2.1.

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。

วิเคราะห์หุ้น technical, risk management, position sizing, news impact — SET + US stocks (ไม่ใช่คำแนะนำลงทุน)

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。

วิเคราะห์ crypto market — BTC/ETH/altcoin, on-chain metrics (MVRV, NUPL), DeFi yield, fear/greed (risk สูงมาก)

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 churned or at-risk customers and draft personalized winback emails

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。

Check SLA compliance across open tickets and flag breaches or at-risk tickets

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 Cloudflare application repository for code paths and configuration that may create usage-based billing exposure. Use when asked to inspect Cloudflare Worker, D1, Durable Objects, storage, queue, or compute usage for unexpected bills, billing risks, or cost drivers. Reports evidence and uncertainty. Runs offline by default; optionally correlates user-authorized, bounded evidence from existing official tools. Does not guarantee a spending cap.

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。

Advanced vulnerability analysis principles. OWASP 2025, Supply Chain Security, attack surface mapping, risk prioritization.

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。

Ward the codebase — an ad-hoc test-gap audit that reveals unguarded code (untested functions, uncovered edge cases, missing error-handling and integration tests) and conjures ready-to-paste test skeletons as protective wards against regression, surfaced inline in the session. Scoped to your current diff by default, or to a path/area you name. Use before merging risky changes or when you suspect thin coverage. Replaces the old always-on `testgaps` daemon worker (alias: /test-gaps).

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。

Proactive bug-hunting workflow. Assesses codebase risk through complexity, coverage, and structural analysis, then spawns focused investigators that write reproducing tests to validate suspected bugs. Thoroughness over speed. Advisory only — produces findings and proposes tickets; does not implement fixes.

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。