3,133 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Technical implementation of GDPR Article 25(2) data protection by default. Covers strictest privacy settings as default configuration, minimum data collection, limited storage duration, restricted accessibility, and opt-in rather than opt-out patterns. Includes implementation checklist and system design requirements.
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。
Implementation guide for GDPR Article 7(3) consent withdrawal mechanisms. Covers the equal ease requirement ensuring withdrawal is as easy as giving consent, one-click withdrawal implementation, cascading effects on downstream processing, third-party notification workflows, and technical architecture for real-time consent revocation.
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。
Splits a body of context into a sequence of vertical-slice build phases where each phase is independently demonstrable to a real user and each builds on the previous. Use when the user wants to plan, sequence, phase, slice, break down, or order the build of a feature, capability, system, or initiative, and produces a plain-language phased build outline. Does not produce implementation detail — use plan-implementation. Does not specify behavior that has not been decided — use plan-a-feature. Does not perform gap analysis between two artifacts — use gap-analysis. Does not break a plan into independently-grabbable work items — use plan-work-items.
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 implementation plan from an existing feature specification (or equivalent context) through a facilitated team conversation. Use when the user wants to plan how to implement, build, deliver, or ship a feature that has already been specified. Does not specify what the feature should do — use plan-a-feature first. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not refine or stress-test an already-written plan — use iterative-plan-review. Runs its resolution rounds to completion and holds its questions until after they finish; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.
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 through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not plan a restructure of code that already exists — use plan-a-change. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features — use project-documentation. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not research open-ended options before there is a feature to specify — use research. Does not map the bounded contexts of existing code — use ddd-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。
Choose compatibility-aware scope for runtime and API changes in openai-guardrails-python. Use before initial implementation and each review-feedback batch to decide whether to patch, reset the design, preserve compatibility, or reject unsupported 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。
Documentation-first project planning that produces implementation-ready blueprints and single-shot coding agent prompts. Generates 4 interconnected docs — SPECIFICATION.md, IMPLEMENTATION.md, TASKS.md, BRANDING.md — plus a self-contained PROMPT.md for autonomous execution by any coding agent. Includes interactive tech stack selection, design pattern recommendations, and architecture decisions with trade-off analysis. Trigger when user wants to: plan a project, create specs, architect a system, break work into tasks, choose a tech stack, get design pattern advice, generate a coding agent prompt, or do documentation-first development. Phrases: "plan my project", "spec this out", "architect", "help me plan", "what stack should I use", "generate a prompt", "break this into tasks", "project docs", "I want to build X".
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。
Generates automated test oracles to verify correct software behavior. Creates assertion-based oracles (expected values), property-based oracles (invariants), differential oracles (comparing implementations), and metamorphic oracles (input transformations). Use when you need to generate assertions for test cases, identify invariants that should always hold, compare new vs legacy implementations, create metamorphic test relationships, validate function correctness, or improve test coverage with better verification strategies. Supports Python (pytest, unittest, hypothesis) and Java (JUnit, property testing).
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 implementation code and tests from written specifications. Use when the user provides specifications (natural language descriptions, formal specs, requirements documents, API specs) and asks Claude to implement the described functionality. Supports data structures, algorithms, classes, functions, and includes automatic test generation to validate implementation against specification.
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。
Extract language-agnostic pseudocode from formally verified programs (Isabelle/HOL, Coq) while preserving verified control flow, data dependencies, and algorithmic logic. Use when: (1) Users have verified code and need readable pseudocode, (2) Documenting verified algorithms for broader audiences, (3) Translating verified implementations to other languages, (4) Creating algorithm specifications from verified code, (5) Preserving verification guarantees in pseudocode form, or (6) Abstracting proof-heavy code to essential logic. Maintains semantic faithfulness to verified 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。
Generate implementation code that passes existing unit tests. Use when the user provides test files (Python pytest/unittest, Java JUnit/TestNG) and asks Claude to implement the code to make those tests pass. Supports full TDD workflow - analyzing tests, generating implementation, running tests, debugging failures, and iterating until all tests pass.
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。
Detect semantic-level bugs by analyzing whether code behavior matches its intended purpose inferred from function/variable names, comments, docstrings, and documentation. Use when users need to: (1) Find logic errors where implementation contradicts stated intent, (2) Identify off-by-one errors and boundary mismatches, (3) Detect inverted logic or wrong operators, (4) Catch missing edge case handling, (5) Verify code matches its documentation. Highlights mismatches between intent and implementation across multiple programming languages.
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。
Check behavioral consistency between high-level hardware specifications and RTL implementations. Use when asked to check RTL consistency, verify RTL against spec, check hardware specification compliance, validate RTL implementation, find spec violations in RTL, check behavioral consistency, or when working with hardware designs that need verification against protocol specifications, timing requirements, or functional specifications in Verilog, VHDL, or SystemVerilog.
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 and verifies semantic equivalence between two functions, classes, or modules by examining control flow, data flow, and observable behavior. Use when comparing code implementations (refactored vs original, different implementations of same functionality, migration verification), determining if two code artifacts produce identical behavior, identifying behavioral differences between code versions, or validating that code changes preserve semantics. Supports formal reasoning and symbolic execution approaches.
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。
Extract abstract mathematical models from functional code (Haskell, OCaml, F#) for formal reasoning in Isabelle/HOL. Use when users need to: (1) Convert functional programs to Isabelle definitions, (2) Extract high-level algorithm essence from implementation code, (3) Generate formal specifications and properties from code, (4) Create verification-ready models that capture mathematical properties while abstracting away implementation details. Focuses on structural recursion, algebraic data types, higher-order functions, and invariant extraction.
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 that design documents, code implementations, and tests fully cover all specified requirements. Use this skill when validating requirement traceability, conducting design reviews, assessing implementation completeness, checking test coverage against requirements, performing compliance audits, or identifying missing functionality. Produces coverage reports showing which requirements are satisfied, partially satisfied, or missing.
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。
Automatically extract abstract finite-state models in SMV/NuSMV format from source code (C/C++, Java, Python) for formal model checking. Use when users need to: (1) Generate SMV models from program code for verification, (2) Extract state-transition models from protocol implementations, (3) Analyze control flow and data flow to construct formal models, (4) Create models for checking safety and liveness properties, (5) Convert imperative code to declarative state machines. Particularly effective for protocol implementations, concurrent systems, and control logic with clear state transitions.
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 test assertions from existing code implementation. Use when the user has implementation code without tests or incomplete test coverage, and needs assertions synthesized by analyzing the code's behavior, inputs, outputs, and state changes. Supports Python (pytest/unittest), Java (JUnit/AssertJ), and JavaScript/TypeScript (Jest/Chai). Handles equality checks, collections, exceptions, and state verification.
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 comprehensive code reviews identifying bugs, security issues, performance problems, code quality concerns, and best practice violations. Use when reviewing pull requests, examining code changes, evaluating new code, assessing code quality, or providing feedback on implementations. Analyzes code for correctness, security vulnerabilities, performance bottlenecks, maintainability issues, test coverage, documentation quality, and adherence to coding standards. Produces structured markdown reviews with categorized findings, severity ratings, specific examples, and actionable recommendations. Triggers when users ask to review code, check pull requests, evaluate implementations, find bugs, or assess code quality.
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 GDD, UX, Architecture, and Epics alignment before production. Use when the user says "check readiness" or "implementation readiness"
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 the user asks to take a feature or bug fix from prompt to implementation, especially prompts like "/create a new feature", "build this feature end-to-end", "take this from plan to PR", or "own this change through validation and handoff". This skill is for repo-local delivery workflows that must create and maintain implementation plans, choose appropriate tests, run deterministic validation, open a draft PR against main, and return the preview deployment URL when one is available.
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。
Turn an ambiguous factory issue into human-approved product, behavior, design, and implementation slices. Use interactively before 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。
Build a preliminary, evidence-based EU AI Act readiness assessment across AI-system inventory, territorial scope, operator roles, prohibited-practice screening, risk classification, transparency, high-risk controls, general-purpose AI obligations, governance, and implementation milestones. Use when an organization needs to triage an AI use case, vendor, model, product, or portfolio for Regulation (EU) 2024/1689; prepare an AI inventory, gap register, implementation roadmap, or counsel briefing; assess provider, deployer, importer, distributor, product-manufacturer, authorised-representative, or GPAI-provider responsibilities; or re-check readiness after regulatory or product changes.
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 requirement quality principles when generating or validating feature specifications. Enforces feature completeness, scenario structure, AC verifiability, feature independence, and implementation slice quality. Use when writing feature specs, validating existing requirements, or when the user mentions 'validate this spec', 'check this feature', 'requirement quality', 'is this spec complete', or 'requirement-quality'. This skill governs the craft of writing individual feature specifications — not technical design (see design-blueprint), not implementation (see code-forge).
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。