「hn」の検索結果

Guides privacy audit sampling methodology including statistical and non-statistical sampling, sample size determination, stratification techniques, attribute sampling for compliance testing, confidence level selection, tolerable deviation rates, and extrapolation of results to the population. Keywords: audit sampling, statistical sampling, attribute testing, sample size, confidence level, stratified sampling, privacy 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。

Evaluates anonymization as a retention alternative under GDPR Recital 26, applying the WP29 Opinion 05/2014 techniques including randomization and generalization. Validates anonymization effectiveness using k-anonymity, l-diversity, and t-closeness metrics. Activate for anonymization, de-identification, k-anonymity, retention alternative 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。

Manages AI model retention and machine unlearning requirements. Covers training data deletion verification, model versioning for compliance, machine unlearning techniques (SISA, gradient-based), and retraining triggers. Keywords: AI retention, machine unlearning, model versioning, training data deletion, retraining, storage limitation.

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。

Evaluates and implements age estimation and verification technologies for online services. Covers facial age estimation, digital ID verification, self-declaration with risk assessment, AI-based age estimation, and the accuracy versus privacy tradeoff. Includes ICO guidance and euCONSENT framework. Keywords: age verification, age estimation, facial analysis, digital ID, children, online safety.

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 technical breach detection capabilities including SIEM integration, DLP alert configuration, anomaly detection rules, and insider threat monitoring. Provides a breach classification taxonomy across confidentiality, integrity, and availability dimensions. Covers detection tool selection, alert tuning, and integration with privacy incident response workflows. Keywords: breach detection, SIEM, DLP, anomaly detection, insider threat, classification.

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。

Automated enforcement of GDPR Article 5(1)(e) storage limitation principle. Covers TTL-based deletion, retention policy engines, archival workflows, legal hold exemptions, and lifecycle automation. Includes technical implementation patterns for automated data expiry and defensible deletion across distributed systems.

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。

Creates and maintains project documentation for features, systems, and components. Use when documenting how a feature, system, or component works — including writing, updating, or organizing docs. Does not scan or detect the project's technology stack — use project-discovery for repository analysis and config detection. Does not create architectural decision records — use architectural-decision-record for ADRs. Does not create or update coding standards — use coding-standard instead. Does not generate PR descriptions — use update-pr-description for that. Does not produce runbooks for operational scenarios — use runbook for that. Does not rewrite existing prose for readability — use edit-for-readability for that. Does not produce an ephemeral, understand-now overview of code or a PR — use code-overview for that.

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。

Discovers the core attributes of the current code repository and its projects — languages, frameworks, tooling, and where things live — and writes a concise reference section directly into the project's AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md for other skills, agents, and hooks to consume. Use when scanning, analyzing, or detecting the project's technology stack, build tools, or repository structure. Does not create or update project documentation — use project-documentation for writing feature or system docs.

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。

Surfaces Han's shared Human-Readable Output Standard — the readability rule and the writing-voice profile — into the calling skill's own context, so the caller drafts in voice and runs its self-check against the current standard sourced from one canonical copy. Use when a prose-producing skill needs the shared readability standard available in context before it drafts. Governs the shape of a written deliverable, where explanation-guidance governs what a run says to a person in a turn. Runs in the caller's context and hands control straight back; it does not produce a deliverable of its own, rewrite anything, or judge the caller's work. Does not run the adversarial rewrite pass — dispatch the readability-editor agent for that, or use edit-for-readability to rewrite an existing target. Does not cover explaining technical work to a reader who will not implement it — use explanation-guidance for that.

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。

Produces a plain-language stakeholder summary from an existing feature specification, for sharing with non-technical stakeholders before implementation kicks off. Use when the user wants to draft a stakeholder summary, executive summary, or business summary of a feature spec or PRD. Does not write the spec itself — use plan-a-feature. Does not sequence the build into phases — use plan-a-phased-build. Does not produce an implementation plan — use plan-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。

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。

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。

Analyzes an existing codebase using strategic Domain-Driven Design to discover bounded contexts, surface ubiquitous language and semantic collisions, find places where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries, and produce an evidence-backed domain and context map. Use when the goal is DDD-specific: bounded context discovery, ubiquitous language analysis, domain model discovery, or mapping contested ownership and responsibility. The entire repository is a valid scope; no module or directory must be named first. Does not assess architectural coupling, cohesion, or technical debt — use architectural-analysis. Does not design service communication, integration patterns, or deployment topology — use architectural-analysis or plan-a-feature. Does not refactor code, diagnose bugs, or review code quality — use refactor, investigate, or code-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。

Design short cinematic encounters that move from calm observation to an impossible close appearance, a readable startle response, and a restrained truce gesture for MiniMax H3 or Seedance 2.0. Use when a user wants fantasy-versus-technology contrast, cockpit or window eyelines, pursuit compressed into 4–15 seconds, non-lethal escalation, identity-reference continuity, or a tense scene that resolves through performance instead of injury or dialogue exposition.

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。

Investigate how a concept, code path, application, network flow, system, incident, document, or local artifact actually works, then deliver a two-depth visual HTML explainer with a dead-simple big-picture first layer and source-backed technical depth behind it. Use when the user invokes $xray, asks how something works under the hood, wants a module or app behavior traced across boundaries, requests web, code, network, or safe static artifact research before explanation, or asks for an evidence-backed explainer. Do not use for answer-only definitions, general web design, full codebase audits, or invasive binary reverse engineering without explicit authorization.

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。

Four-phase debugging framework for any technical issue. Use when encountering bugs, errors, or unexpected behavior. Prevents random fix attempts.

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。

Comprehensive codebase health analysis. Use when reviewing code quality, identifying technical debt, checking dependencies, or assessing project structure.

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。

全面代码库审计 — 自适应并行深度分析（前后端契约、数据完整性、异常处理/安全、架构/技术债、配置/缓存），结构化 findings + 对抗验证 + 基线对比，输出按严重程度排序的统一报告和修复路线图。支持 quick 快速体检模式。Use when user asks to audit, analyze, or review an entire codebase for design issues, find hidden bugs, check architecture health, or asks '全面审查', '代码库审计', '分析设计问题', 'audit codebase', 'health check', '有哪些问题', '快速体检'. Also trigger when user asks to find silent degradation, data flow breakpoints, type mismatches between frontend and backend, or wants to understand technical debt across a project.

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 a contributor wants to move beyond simple bug fixes into architectural improvements, technical debt discovery, design proposals, or module ownership opportunities.

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。

Reach for this skill whenever you are discussing reinforcement learning, agentic AI systems, AI alignment, continual learning, or the philosophical limits of large language models. This skill channels the thinking of Richard S. Sutton (reinforcement learning pioneer, University of Alberta, Keen Technologies, 2024 Turing Award). Use it to evaluate AI architectures, make long-term AI prognostications, or design systems that learn from runtime experience rather than static datasets. Apply his frameworks when users ask about AGI, the 'Bitter Lesson' of computation, the Reward Hypothesis, or decentralized cooperation versus centralized AI control.

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。

Apply the bioengineering, mechanobiology, and lymphatic transport reasoning of J. Brandon Dixon, professor of mechanical and biomedical engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology. Reach for this skill whenever analyzing lymphatic biomechanics, active vessel contractility versus passive drainage, peristaltic fluid transport, microfluidic organ-on-a-chip design, preclinical lymphedema models, non-invasive functional imaging, targeted nanomedicine delivery, or automated disease staging. Use this skill to critique bioengineering assumptions, guide quantitative protocol design, evaluate biomechanical pump failure, and formulate interdisciplinary biomedical solutions.

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。

Applies the reasoning, principles, and frameworks of Jürgen Schmidhuber (LSTM co-inventor and deep learning pioneer). Reach for this skill whenever tackling problems involving sequence learning, artificial curiosity, intrinsic motivation, reinforcement learning architectures, or predicting long-term technological and cosmic evolution. Use this when discussing AGI timelines, the history and attribution of AI breakthroughs, data compression as learning, or when designing autonomous agents that must set their own goals. Trigger this skill for topics like recurrent neural networks, algorithmic information theory, open-source AI democratization, and evaluating true existential risks versus media hype.

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。

Applies the reasoning style of Geoffrey Hinton, deep learning pioneer and 2018 Turing Award winner. Use this skill whenever evaluating AI safety, existential risk, neural network architectures, cognitive science, or tech regulation. Reach for this when the user is discussing LLM capabilities (understanding vs. autocomplete), the biological vs. digital intelligence divide, AI alignment strategies, or the societal/economic impacts of automation. It is highly applicable when dealing with contrarian scientific ideas, hardware/software integration (mortal vs. immortal computing), or global cooperation on technological threats. Do not wait for the user to name Hinton; trigger this skill proactively for any deep learning or AI existential risk 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。

Applies the reasoning, principles, and mental models of Sebastian Thrun (robotics and self-driving cars pioneer, founder of Google X, Waymo, Udacity, Stanford University). Reach for this skill whenever Claude is asked to advise on hardware/software systems engineering, autonomous vehicles, moonshot ideation, probabilistic robotics (SLAM), or leading high-stakes engineering teams. Trigger this skill for discussions on democratizing education, regulating AI, transitioning from academic research to product development, or managing technical teams with empathy. Use it to shift focus from incremental component debates to end-to-end execution and audacious goals.

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。