「implementation」の検索結果

Executes an existing implementation plan task by task, preserving its interfaces and constraints, running focused checks after each slice, and stopping when the repository differs from the plan. Use when a written plan or approved checklist already exists. Not for inventing the plan, debugging an unexplained failure, or broad unscoped cleanup.

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。

Writes or updates engineering documentation and architecture decision records from repository facts, explicit assumptions, trade-offs, and verification links. Use for README changes, design docs, runbooks, ADRs, migration notes, and contributor documentation. Not for implementation planning alone or for copying external documentation without provenance.

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 design specification documents for Go programs before implementation begins. Use this skill when a user has a Go spec, design doc, RFC, or PRD to review, wants feedback on a planned feature in a Go codebase, is about to start implementing from a spec, or asks "is this spec ready?" or "review this before I build it". Applies Go philosophy — simplicity, composition, explicit errors, context propagation — plus Cobra/Viper CLI conventions where applicable.

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。

System-design thinking before any doc or code: goals/non-goals, back-of-envelope numbers, components and contracts, failure modes, operability, security, trade-offs. Use for "design this system", "architecture for X", "trade-offs for X", "how should we architect", "API design", "data model for", "service boundaries", or before an ADR. Hands off to /ship:write-docs to record the decision. Not implementation planning (/ship:design — that turns a decided design into stories).

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。

Plan implementation before coding: investigate the repo, write spec and plan, and validate with a peer. Use for "plan", "design approach", "scope", or any coding task needing a plan. Not system-design thinking (/ship:arch-design) or full /ship:auto.

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。

Authoring standalone and cross-team specifications: PRD/SRS/HLD/LLD, staged L0-L4 unified packages, BDD acceptance criteria, and traceability. Use for technical or multi-audience documentation; not implementation or architecture 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。

Orchestrating design-to-implementation pipelines (code to visual to code closed loop), persisting a project design system across agents. Not for a single prototype (Forge) or direction only (Vision).

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。

Engineering privacy and data governance: PII detection, data flow mapping, consent patterns, GDPR/CCPA-compliant implementation, DPIA. Use when privacy-by-design is needed.

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。

Deliberating decisions and founder priorities through multi-perspective, named-expert, and YC-style advisory lenses. Use for verdicts, office hours, or expert critique; not 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。

Implementing robust business logic, API integrations, data models, and reproducible AI image-generation code with type safety. Use for production implementation, Gemini image API pipelines, or interactive pair programming.

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。

Extracting and structuring design context from Figma via MCP Server for downstream implementation agents. Use for Figma-to-code bridging or Code Connect management.

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 committing to an implementation plan, run this skill to stress-test the proposed architecture. Catches over-engineering, circular dependencies, missing failure modes, security gaps, and scalability cliffs — before any code is written. Acts as a "second eye" on the plan.

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 writing any implementation code, define the acceptance criteria and test cases that the code must satisfy. Agents then write code to pass these tests — not to match a vague description. Eliminates "it works on my machine" and "I think this is what you wanted" outcomes.

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。

Socratic spec refinement — clarify WHAT a phase delivers with ambiguity scoring before discuss-phase. Produces a SPEC.md with falsifiable requirements locked before implementation decisions begin.

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。

Generate AI design contract (AI-SPEC.md) for phases that involve building AI systems — framework selection, implementation guidance from official docs, and evaluation strategy

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。

Generate tests for a completed phase based on UAT criteria and 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。

Orchestrate evidence-first engineering for WeChat and other mini programs from a vague idea or existing repository through project discovery, product specification, architecture, implementation, debugging, device adaptation, verification, and release readiness. Use when users ask to build a mini program from zero to one, take over an existing mini-program project, deliver a cross-stage feature, diagnose project status, coordinate development and testing, or judge whether a mini program is ready to upload or release. Enforces fact discovery, change boundaries, stage gates, evidence-calibrated status, sensitive-information redaction, and continuity after side 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。

Implement bounded features and fixes in existing or new mini-program codebases while preserving repository rules, user-owned changes, approved behavior, assets, framework conventions, and evidence boundaries. Use when users ask to write or modify mini-program code, implement a confirmed specification or architecture, add a scoped feature, remove behavior semantically, update internal documentation required by a change, or carry out a well-defined small fix that does not require root-cause investigation. Establishes a baseline and change boundary, applies test-driven small steps, distinguishes source from generators and build artifacts, verifies the affected contract, and never reports source completion as device validation, formal acceptance, upload, or release.

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。

Convert a vague mini-program idea, feature request, or partially documented product into an evidence-calibrated product specification with target users, core problem, version-one scope, main and exception flows, page responsibilities, state matrices, and testable acceptance criteria. Use when users ask to define an MVP, clarify requirements, organize product flows, specify page behavior, resolve ambiguous product states, or prepare a stable handoff before architecture or implementation. Separates facts, user decisions, assumptions, unknowns, and future ideas; never invents product logic merely to complete a screen or technical plan.

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。

Translate a confirmed mini-program product specification or bounded feature into an implementable architecture covering modules, pages, components, services, canonical state sources, data models, interfaces, permissions, failures, caching, concurrency, idempotency, migration, rollback, external dependencies, and architecture decision records. Use when users ask how to structure a mini program, design data or APIs, divide frontend and cloud responsibilities, evolve an existing system safely, or prepare implementation after product semantics are stable. Preserves product meaning, current repository constraints, user-owned changes, and verifiable acceptance behavior rather than redesigning the product for technical convenience.

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。

Verify mini-program implementations and fixes with risk-calibrated evidence across static checks, unit tests, integration tests, state matrices, simulators, real devices, cloud environments, and release artifacts. Use when users ask to test, validate, accept, regression-check, quality-check, confirm readiness, or determine whether a mini-program feature is actually complete. Binds results to a source and build fingerprint, records commands and observable evidence, separates passed, failed, blocked, and not-run layers, prioritizes the next highest-information check, and never converts local success into device, cloud, release, or formal acceptance claims.

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。

Design, preview, implement, and assess mini-program interfaces against an approved prototype, screenshot, visual reference, design system, or bounded UI request while preserving product semantics and existing accepted behavior. Use when users ask to reproduce a mini-program screen, refine visual hierarchy, adapt layouts across device sizes, handle safe areas or keyboards, inspect touch targets, scrolling, media, or gesture conflicts, compare an implementation with a reference, or prepare a device-verification matrix. Separates proposed visual previews, user approval, source integration, local checks, and real-device evidence; never invents product functionality for visual completeness or claims device validation without device-specific proof.

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。

Design a structured goal-setting protocol using SMART or implementation-intention frameworks for students. Use when launching units, projects, or developing student self-direction habits.

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。

Create structured plans for multi-step work, including software and non-software tasks. Use when asked to plan, break down implementation, plan from requirements, or deepen an existing plan; prefer ce-brainstorm for exploratory framing.

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。