「scope」の検索結果

GStack CEO/founder-mode plan review for strategy, customer value, scope, sequencing, business risk, and whether the work should be done now.

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。

GStack CSO method for broad infrastructure-first security posture review, threat areas, severity calibration, and safe remediation scope.

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 deep, honest peer-review of how someone uses Claude Code by statistically analyzing their local session data (~/.claude/usage-data/ and ~/.claude/projects/). Trigger whenever the user asks to review, analyze, audit, or critique their own Claude Code usage, workflow, habits, or skill level — including phrases like "analyze my cc usage", "review my cc sessions", "peer review my cc workflow", "deeper than /insights", or any ask for an honest audit of their AI workflow. Also covers portfolio/hiring-manager framings (e.g. "portfolio for Anthropic/OpenAI/xAI"), but ALWAYS ask the user in Step 0 which version to build (self / hr / both) before running — never silently produce an HR report, because that version goes to outsiders and needs explicit privacy setup. The HTML report is laid out ledger-first for SELF (opening band, output/team/leak/trend ledgers, then peer review, 9-dim scoring, try-this-week, case study, claim-indexed evidence). The HR variant is a recruiter version v1: identity card, earned badges (threshold-based, earned-only), allowlist-filtered output ledger, one case study, and a methodology & scope disclosure — no scores, no peer-review memo, no charts.

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。

The crouton mental model for someone who has never seen this repo — what "layer" means (two different things), the two-halves rule, the three app.config registries, team-scoped multi-tenancy, manifest-driven field types, the numbered invariants with the incidents behind them, and the known-weak points. Use when orienting in this codebase for the first time, when a question is shaped like "how does crouton work / why is it built this way / where does X live", when deciding whether a change belongs in a package or a generated layer, when confused by an extends chain or by croutonApps/croutonCollections/croutonLayoutBlocks, or before proposing any structural change. Trigger phrases: "what is a crouton layer", "package vs generated layer", "how does multi-tenancy work here", "why is there a stub component", "where do field types come from", "what invariants must hold".

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。

Cleanly tear down a crouton poc/app — the inverse of /deploy. Removes the code, the Cloudflare Worker + D1 + KV (both env scopes), the app's stray branches, and closes its epic/sub-issues — with a --dry-run first and a typed confirm for anything destructive. Use when asked to "remove an app", "tear down a poc", "delete app X and its resources", or to clean up after an abandoned proof-of-concept. Counterpart to /deploy, /poc-deploy, crouton init.

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。

PM role in AID methodology. Use for requirements, user stories, acceptance criteria, stakeholder management, scope definition.

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 designing, auditing, or redesigning a web UI; select fast, prototype, or studio from the requested scope.

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 for role-scoped FE/BE/DevOps/Admin/QA project docs under .codex/project-docs to preserve micro-context across long projects.

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。

Prove a Convex feature works — seed, drive as multiple mocked users via convex-test, assert behavior including the negative authz cases (wrong user refused, data-scope enforced).

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。

Query a running Convex app's logs + health in natural language (official MCP): failures, slow/expensive functions, deploy causality — scoped, evidence-backed, with a dashboard deep link.

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。

Reflection-first problem solving methodology for Convex development. Use before implementing any solution to ensure proper root cause analysis, 98% code confidence, and minimal change scope.

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。

Reflection-first problem solving methodology for Convex development. Use before implementing any solution to ensure proper root cause analysis, 98% code confidence, and minimal change scope.

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。

Query a running Convex app's logs + health in natural language (official MCP): failures, slow/expensive functions, deploy causality — scoped, evidence-backed, with a dashboard deep link.

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。

Prove a Convex feature works — seed, drive as multiple mocked users via convex-test, assert behavior including the negative authz cases (wrong user refused, data-scope enforced).

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。

Analyze one GitHub issue for root cause, complexity, and risk into .idd/analysis-N.json. Use when you need to analyze or scope issue #N. Don't use for creating issues (/issue-creator), triaging (/issue-triage), or resolving (/issue-resolver).

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。

/cs:aims-audit <scope> — ISO/IEC 42001 AIMS internal-audit 6-question forcing interrogation. Use before certification stage 1, before annual internal audit cycles, or when onboarding a new AI system into an existing AIMS.

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。

Forensic root cause analyzer for Antigravity sessions. Classifies scope deltas, rework patterns, root causes, hotspots, and auto-improves prompts/health.

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 a bounded spec-build-review development loop with explicit scope, stop conditions, and human approval gates for risky or ambiguous work.

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 and execute a comprehensive red team engagement covering reconnaissance through post-exploitation using MITRE ATT&CK-aligned TTPs to evaluate an organization's detection and response capabilities.

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。

This skill outlines methodologies for performing authorized penetration testing against AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments. It covers understanding the shared responsibility model for testing scope, leveraging cloud-specific attack tools like Pacu and ScoutSuite, exploiting IAM misconfigurations, testing for SSRF to cloud metadata services, and reporting findings aligned to MITRE ATT&CK Cloud matrix.

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。

Conduct a defensible cybersecurity risk assessment using the NIST SP 800-30 Rev 1 methodology: prepare scope and a risk model, identify threat sources and threat events, identify vulnerabilities and predisposing conditions, determine likelihood and impact, compute risk, and communicate results as a prioritized risk register. Use when an organization needs an actual risk *assessment* (not a maturity score), when a control framework (CSF, ISO 27001, RMF, SOC 2, PCI) requires a documented risk analysis as input, when leadership asks "what are our top risks and how bad are they", when assessing risk for a new system or major change, or when building a risk register from scratch. This is the methodology that feeds framework selection, ATO packages, and treatment decisions. Keywords: risk assessment, NIST 800-30, threat modeling, likelihood and impact, risk register, risk analysis, threat sources, vulnerabilities, risk determination, qualitative risk, risk matrix, residual risk, risk treatment.

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 supply chain attack artifacts including trojanized software updates, compromised build pipelines, and sideloaded dependencies to identify intrusion vectors and scope of compromise.

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。

Prepare a defense-contractor environment for CMMC Level 2 certification: scope CUI and FCI, implement the 110 NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 security requirements across 14 families, compute the SPRS score with the DoD Assessment Methodology, manage a compliant POA&M, and ready the organization for a C3PAO assessment. Use when an organization handles Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) under a DoD contract, when a contract carries DFARS clause 252.204-7012/7019/7020/7021, when preparing for or responding to a CMMC assessment, when computing or improving an SPRS score, when building a System Security Plan or POA&M for 800-171, or when scoping which systems are in the CUI boundary. Keywords: CMMC, CMMC Level 2, NIST 800-171, SP 800-171 Rev 2, CUI, FCI, SPRS, DFARS 7012, C3PAO, POA&M, System Security Plan, DoD Assessment Methodology, 110 controls, defense industrial base, DIB, FedRAMP equivalency.

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 the Tamanu release-branch CUTOFF checks when preparing to cut a new release/X.YY branch: confirm the previous release's hotfixes are merged to main, reconcile the commits since the previous release against the "Merged to main" card list from Linear, and scan for data/reporting/schema changes. Use when the user is cutting a Tamanu release and wants to verify the codebase is ready, wants to check main against the previous release branch, or wants to reconcile commits with a Linear "Merged to main" column (they should paste the card list). Handles Tamanu's train-release model (release/X.YY branches vs vX.YY.Z patch tags) and the cherry-pick model where the same logical fix has different SHAs on different branches. Purely git-based — no live database or Canopy access needed. Not for verifying an existing release branch's hotfix integrity (see pre-release-checks) or for deciding which tests to run (see scope-tamanu-release-tests).

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。