「decision」の検索結果

Create and maintain one committed per-project memory file (PROJECT.md) so agents stop re-discovering the same facts every cold session. Stores only the stable, expensive-to-rediscover, not-in-the-code context — architecture + why, build/test/run commands, decisions and dead-ends — as human-readable markdown, versioned with the code so it can't silently rot. Use when asked to set up project memory/context, stop agents re-grepping the codebase, scaffold or refresh a PROJECT.md / CLAUDE.md memory section, or cut cold-start rediscovery cost. Prose context only — never code, config, or data.

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。

Transform an AI agent into a disciplined software development partner with strong judgment, transparent decisions, proportionate verification, and craftsmanship. Use for software implementation, feature work, bug fixing, refactoring, optimization, migrations, and sustained collaboration inside a codebase. Do not use merely because a task involves an AI agent; use a dedicated agent-design skill when the primary problem is agent 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。

Autonomous agents are AI systems that can independently decompose goals, plan actions, execute tools, and self-correct without constant human guidance. The challenge isn't making them capable - it's making them reliable. Every extra decision multiplies failure probability.

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。

Research uncertain questions with an explicit, user-approved web search or ChatGPT consultation, then present options and wait for implementation approval.

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, audit, and improve analytics tracking systems that produce reliable, decision-ready data.

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。

API design principles and decision-making. REST vs GraphQL vs tRPC selection, response formats, versioning, pagination.

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。

Rules for when an agent should recall from long-term memory before acting and when it should save decisions, corrections and failures afterwards. Works with any memory backend.

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。

A hybrid memory system that provides persistent, searchable knowledge management for AI agents (Architecture, Patterns, 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。

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。

Pre-contract vendor privacy due diligence per GDPR Article 28(1). Covers risk questionnaires, technical controls assessment, certification review, data flow analysis, and documented sufficiency decisions for processor engagement.

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 implementation of EU Standard Contractual Clauses under Commission Decision 2021/914 across all four modules (C2C, C2P, P2P, P2C). Covers clause-by-clause completion, Annex I-III drafting, and SCC module selection. Keywords: SCCs, standard contractual clauses, module selection, data transfers, Annex completion.

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。

Classifies personal vs non-personal data per GDPR Art. 4(1) definition test with decision tree for borderline cases. References Breyer v Germany CJEU C-582/14 dynamic IP ruling and WP29 Opinion 4/2007. Keywords: personal data, GDPR Art 4, data classification, Breyer ruling, identifiability test, PII.

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 the Privacy Threshold Analysis screening process to determine whether a full DPIA is required. Provides a quick-screen questionnaire, threshold criteria based on WP248rev.01, escalation triggers, and documentation requirements. Activate when evaluating new processing activities, system changes, or procurement decisions. Keywords: PTA, privacy threshold analysis, DPIA screening, quick-screen, threshold criteria, WP248, escalation triggers.

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 GDPR Article 17 right to erasure (right to be forgotten) workflow, covering all six grounds for erasure, five exceptions, technical deletion versus anonymization decisions, and third-party notification under Article 19. Activate for erasure request, deletion request, right to be forgotten, Art. 17 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。

Guides determination of the correct lawful basis under GDPR Article 6(1)(a)-(f) for each processing activity. Includes decision tree logic for consent vs legitimate interest vs contract necessity. Activate when evaluating legal grounds for processing or reviewing lawful basis selections. Keywords: lawful basis, Article 6, consent, legitimate interest, legal obligation, contract.

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 for obtaining explicit consent for international data transfers under GDPR Article 49(1)(a). Covers informed consent requirements including risks of transfers without adequacy decisions or appropriate safeguards, specific destination country disclosure, and the narrow scope of derogation-based transfers.

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。

Designs and executes tabletop breach simulation exercises for testing organizational breach response capabilities. Covers scenario creation with realistic inject timelines, participant role assignment, communication testing across internal and external channels, decision-point evaluation, and after-action report generation. Keywords: tabletop exercise, breach simulation, incident response testing, scenario design, after-action report.

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 APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules system certification process including self-assessment against the APEC Privacy Framework principles, accountability agent selection, intake questionnaire completion, certification decision, annual recertification, and Global CBPR Forum transition. Keywords: APEC, CBPR, cross-border privacy, accountability agent, certification, Global CBPR.

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 data subject rights mechanisms for AI systems including right to explanation of AI decisions, contestation procedures, human review, model output correction, and training data access. Covers GDPR Arts. 15-22 and AI Act Art. 86. Keywords: data subject rights, AI explanation, contestation, human review, training data access, model correction.

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 and application of GDPR Article 49 derogation conditions for international data transfers in the absence of adequacy decisions or appropriate safeguards. Covers explicit consent, contract necessity, public interest, vital interests, public register, and compelling legitimate interests with restrictive interpretation per EDPB Guidelines 2/2018. Keywords: Art. 49, derogations, transfer exceptions, explicit consent, compelling legitimate interests.

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 Data Protection Impact Assessments for AI and ML systems per EDPB Guidelines 04/2025 on AI processing. Covers training data lawfulness evaluation, model risk assessment, automated decision triggers, and AI-specific DPIA methodology. Keywords: AI DPIA, machine learning impact assessment, EDPB AI guidelines, model risk, training data.

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 AI transparency requirements under EU AI Act Arts. 13-14 and GDPR Arts. 13-14. Covers user notification of AI interaction, system capability disclosure, limitation documentation, and meaningful information about automated logic. Keywords: AI transparency, EU AI Act, GDPR notification, explainability, automated 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。

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for planning the change its findings imply — use plan-a-change. Not for discovering bounded contexts, ubiquitous language, or where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

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。