2,197 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when auditing a repository for evidence-backed gaps between code, SPECs, architecture, and documentation — before a release, after a review, or when the user asks what is missing or divergent. Confirmed gaps become Draft SPECs via write-specs, a tracked GitHub Epic via create-issues, and orchestrated execution via orchestrator, with an explicit approval gate before any external action.
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。
Quick one-shot lookup over Ahmad's OpenMark bookmark knowledge graph (15k+ items from Edge, LinkedIn, YouTube, Raindrop). Use whenever Ahmad asks "find my bookmarks on X", "what did I save about X", "anything in OpenMark about X", or any single-topic search where he wants results in under 10 seconds. NOT for newsletter drafting or deep research — for those use openmark-deep-research or openmark-newsletter. Triggers on "find my", "what did I save", "openmark", "my bookmarks", "search bookmarks".
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。
Writing anything the fleet produces for a person to read: a README, a changelog, a commit message, a review note, a task file, a docblock, a user-facing string. Carries the WordPress Documentation Style Guide rules in `references/`. Use before drafting or rewriting prose, then run the pass that takes the machine out: `humanizer` for English, `humaniseur-fr` for French.
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。
Editing English prose that reads as machine-written. Use when reviewing or rewriting a draft for AI tells — a README, a changelog entry, a comment, a user-facing string, a review. French text is `humaniseur-fr`.
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。
Workshop how to break this card into smaller spawned cards and capture entries in the card breakdown
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。
Draft or refine the implementation checklist from specs and current 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 a working doc — a drafting space where spec-level and implementation thinking co-exist before splitting into specs, plan, and test cases
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。
Workshop the shape of this project — audience, components, ambiguities — before drafting the PRD
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。
Prose final-pass editor for GitHub issue bodies, pull request bodies, release notes, README/docs changes, public comments, and user-facing explanations. Use when Codex drafts or revises substantial prose that will be published or committed, especially when the user asks to polish, de-slop, make it less AI-written, improve a PR/issue body, or prepare docs text; do not use for ordinary code implementation, debugging transcripts, logs, quoted text, command output, API names, or Chinese conversational replies unless explicitly requested.
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 you need to review presentation materials from an audience perspective to improve their quality and effectiveness. Evaluates content clarity, visual design, logical flow, engagement factors, and Marp technical compatibility. Triggers include "review my presentation", "check my slides", "presentation feedback", or when a user has completed a draft presentation and wants comprehensive quality 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。
Generic helpdesk first-response skill for creating KB-based response drafts. Use when handling support tickets, creating response templates, or building a structured helpdesk workflow. Supports error code detection, keyword matching, confidence scoring, multi-language templates, and escalation workflows. Customize by providing your own KB articles and configuration.
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 evaluating, designing, drafting, revising, stress-testing, or preparing academic articles, empirical research reports, literature reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, journal submissions, reviewer responses, research methods, sampling, measurement, analysis, publication readiness, or citation/source audits.
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。
Write, validate, and (optionally) execute an NQL query against a Narrative dataset. Drafts the query from the user's question, runs `narrative_nql_validate` until it compiles, explains the query in plain English, and only runs it on explicit approval (or when invoked with `--run`). Use when: "write an NQL query for X", "query this dataset", "validate this NQL", "run NQL against dataset <id>", "how many rows match Y", "show me the top N records from <dataset>". (narrative-common)
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。
Remove AI writing patterns from prose. Use when drafting, editing, or reviewing text to eliminate predictable AI tells.
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。
Product-discovery coach for Fishbowl engineers — inspired by Marty Cagan's work (never impersonates him). Stage-routes between opportunity brief, research, PRD, ticket drafting, and outcome review. Triggers on "product coach", "help me with product", "I need to write a PRD", "I want to do discovery", "opportunity assessment", "who is this for", "why are we building this", or when an engineer is starting, resuming, or post-mortem-ing product-adjacent work. Invoke with a short description of what you want to do, or invoke bare to be surveyed and routed.
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 invoking the standalone `event-setup` machine CLI to inspect the environment catalogue, validate or render dotenv input, process configuration manifests or tenant packages, export/import operator-identity portability artifacts, validate legal drafts, or run setup diagnostics; do not use for the interactive terminal UI, browser setup, or API endpoint design.
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。
Draft economics papers with proper structure and academic style
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 SD-22 DMSMS Guidebook (DSPO, FY24 working draft). Use for managing Diminished Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) and obsolescence across a long-lived system's life cycle: the five-step process (Prepare, Identify, Assess, Analyze, Implement) plus the Strategize overlay; standing up a DMSMS Management Team (DMT) and Management Plan (DMP); risk-based monitoring and surveillance (the risk cube, predictive tools, vendor surveys, GIDEP/DLA PDNs, critical-materials analysis); health assessments and resolution timing; costing and selecting resolutions (life-of-need buys, substitutes, redesign, technology refreshment) by AoA/BCA; and budgeting/executing resolutions through modification funding and the ECP process. Defense-sustainment / DoD-acquisition framing throughout. Does NOT teach general systems engineering, parts-management standards, or contracting law in depth, and does not reproduce DoD policy text or the source's tables and figures.
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 NIST Framework for Cyber-Physical Systems (SP 1500-201/202/203, v1.0, 2017). Use for engineering and analyzing cyber-physical systems (CPS) and IoT: the CPS Framework's aspect × facet grid (nine aspects of concern examined through conceptualization, realization, and assurance facets), cross-property trustworthiness risk management (safety/security/privacy/reliability/resilience together), data interoperability (syntactical/semantic/contextual, canonical models, identifiers, provenance), the timing aspect (time-interval classes, time domains, time-aware networking) and secure/resilient time (GNSS jamming/spoofing, PTP/NTP attacks, holdover, the clock-error model and Allan/MTIE metrics), plus the use-case requirements method. Bridges IT and OT under a clock. Scope limits: a 2017 living/draft document, thin on post-2017 standards and on detailed control catalogs; it names but does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 and 15288 process text or permission-licensed third-party figures.
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 an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack instead. 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 the text and structure of a document, slide deck or web page against the accessibility rules the user supplies, or a default set covering heading structure, image alternative text, colour used as the only cue, link text, reading order, tables and language, and returns numbered findings with location, rule, severity and a ready-to-apply fix for the author, plus proposed alt text and a list of checks that need a tool or a person. Use when the user asks to "check this document for accessibility", "review the alt text in this deck", "is this page accessible", "run an accessibility check on these slides", "find accessibility issues before I publish" or "check my headings and link text". Do not use for brand or template compliance of slides, use branded-deck-builder instead. 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。
Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer instead. 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 the instructions text and skills of a declarative agent, with its stated capabilities, knowledge sources and audience, for prompt-injection exposure, data-leakage paths, over-broad permissions and missing refusals, and returns an attack-surface map, a findings table with severity, quoted evidence and attack path, one pasteable fix per finding, a probe pack the owner can run and a refusal-coverage table. Use when the user asks to "red-team this agent", "check these instructions for prompt injection", "could this agent leak data", "review the permissions on my agent" or "what should this agent refuse". Do not use for checking a SKILL.md against the format rules, use skill-file-reviewer instead; do not use for designing the launch test set, use agent-evaluation-plan instead. 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。
Runs twice in a PFD to P&ID job. Part 1, before gate G3, validates the discipline proposals for provenance, UNKNOWN handling, conflicts, prohibited content and cross-section consistency and returns results and blocking items. Part 2, before gate G5, assembles the review package, with job header, gate record, every register and proposal, consolidated UNKNOWN list, feedback log and closing statement. Use when the user asks to "validate the enrichment", "run validation before G3", "assemble the review package" or "build the G5 package". Do not use for the readiness map, use pid-tool-readiness-mapping instead; do not use to produce a missing discipline section, use the discipline skill that owns it. 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。