「pact」の検索結果

Use this skill when planning user adoption, structuring Salesforce training materials, drafting release communications, or running a change impact assessment for a Salesforce rollout or update. Triggers: user adoption plan, training materials, release announcement, change impact, go-live communication, communication plan, training plan by persona, adoption metrics, LoginHistory adoption report, PromptAction, training sandbox, go-live checklist, post-go-live feedback, super user program, pilot group. NOT for org deployment mechanics or sandbox promotion — use admin/change-management-and-deployment. NOT for adoption of an Agentforce or Einstein AI feature — use admin/ai-adoption-change-management. NOT for configuring the in-app prompts themselves — use admin/in-app-guidance-and-walkthroughs.

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。

Mechanical consistency check for game design — answers "is the design consistent with itself?" — plus changed-scope impact analysis across all three GDD axes: systems, flows, and content types. Offline and deterministic: greps the facts registry against the documents (numbers, terms, IDs, duplicate & dangling references, roster↔disk, map freshness, Depends 3-way, status/version, AC presence, placeholder leaks, flow & content schema), and from a git diff computes which dependent systems, flows, and content a change affects. Scope is inferred: a named document checks that document; an unverified diff triggers a changed-scope pass; otherwise everything. Use when the user wants a consistency or impact check, e.g. "verify the design", "what did this change affect", "find broken references in the design". Conflicts triage into four tracks; the entailed fixes hand off to /unikit-gd-apply in one pass. This is the mechanical pass — for a subjective "is this design good" quality critique use /unikit-gd-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。

Read-only audit of `.claude/` structural overhead. Reports prioritized "remove X save Y tokens" recommendations against the model context window. NOT for monetary cost tracking — that's /mk:budget. NOT for transcript size monitoring — long-session continuity defers to Claude Code native compaction. NOT for runtime context decisions (what to read, when to compact) — see mk:context-engineering. Use when planning to add context capacity, diagnosing perceived slowdowns, or auditing 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。

Prepares for hiring manager rounds at Staff+ (L6+) level — scope of impact, influence without authority, ambiguity navigation, mentorship, strategic thinking. Use when practicing HM rounds or calibrating story depth for target level. Activate on "hiring manager round", "HM screen", "staff level", "scope of impact". NOT for coding interviews, system design, behavioral/values rounds, or resume writing.

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。

Derive an execution roadmap from a project's vision/spec docs by first principles, then diff that fresh derivation against the existing roadmap to prove the task ORDER is correct. Use this whenever the user wants to review, validate, re-derive, or sanity-check an execution roadmap or delivery plan; asks whether the tasks/epics are "in the right order"; suspects a task is scheduled before its prerequisite (a producer-after-consumer / dependency-inversion error like "OpenAPI after the web client that consumes it", OR a cross-cutting inherited default like observability/auth/tenancy scheduled after the feature work that inherits it — a seam-after-consumer error); wants to find missing tasks, circular dependencies, or over-fragmented epics; or wants to compact a plan to raise velocity. Also trigger on "review the roadmap", "re-derive the plan from the spec", "is this the right build order", "check the dependency graph of our epics", "which task should come first". It reads the vision + spec corpus, decomposes actors → use-cases → modules → epics → typed tasks, identifies cross-cutting inherited-default seams, builds a real dependency graph with hard + soft (seam) edges (deterministic helper), breaks cycles, topologically orders, compacts, and emits a derived roadmap PLUS a delta report against the current one — it never blindly overwrites a hand-crafted roadmap.

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。

Expert-level topology knowledge. Use when working with topological spaces, continuity, compactness, connectedness, metric spaces, homeomorphisms, fundamental groups, homology, manifolds, or algebraic topology. Also use when the user mentions 'open set', 'closed set', 'compactness', 'connectedness', 'homeomorphism', 'homotopy', 'fundamental group', 'covering space', 'manifold', 'homology', 'Euler characteristic', or 'topological invariant'.

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。

Amplify safe or boring designs to make them more visually interesting and stimulating. Increases impact while maintaining usability. Use when the user says the design looks bland, generic, too safe, lacks personality, or wants more visual impact and character.

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 stakeholder communications including investor updates, board reports, annual impact reports, and partner communications aligned with B Corp PSG standards. Use when user asks about investor relations, board communications, stakeholder reporting, impact reports, annual reports, or partner/supplier communications.

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 you need blast-radius analysis, dependency graphs, cross-repo impact, breaking-change diff, or architectural overview of .NET workspaces. Keywords: blast radius, dependency graph, impact analysis, cross-repo, call graph, endpoint map, EF Core lineage, breaking change, daemon, reindex.

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 reviewing a .NET pull request for breaking changes that may affect other microservice repositories. Detects cross-repo API, DTO, endpoint, EF entity, and NuGet-package breaks, and checks whether a compatible downstream PR already exists. Keywords: cross-repo impact, breaking change, microservice compatibility, downstream break, compatible PR, blast radius review, api compatibility, contract break, dto shape change, endpoint break.

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。

Route codebase-structure questions (who calls X, where used, change-impact) to an existing code-graph first: impact, tests-for, dead cheaper, never more precise; grep routine. Also 'call graph'.

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。

Amplify safe or boring designs to make them more visually interesting and stimulating. Increases impact while maintaining usability. Use when the user says the design looks bland, generic, too safe, lacks personality, or wants more visual impact and character.

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。

Amplify safe or boring designs to make them more visually interesting and stimulating. Increases impact while maintaining usability. Use when the user says the design looks bland, generic, too safe, lacks personality, or wants more visual impact and character.

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。

変更が波及する全モジュール・全フローを特定し、集計ルール、状態遷移、符号反転、 コピペ差分、表示/帳票/APIの整合性を監査するスキル。Impact Mapで変更核から 影響範囲を可視化し、Consistency Matrixで横断整合を検証し、Copy Propagation Review戦略でコピペ実装を効率的にレビューする。 Use when one change affects multiple modules, reports, flows, or copied implementations. Audits aggregation totals, state transitions, sign inversion, and cross-module consistency.

エラーや例外シナリオを顧客体験(CX)の観点で体系的に分析し、改善優先度を付ける スキル。6軸評価（影響度・頻度・復旧容易性・メッセージ品質・感情的影響・ ビジネスコスト）でスコアリングし、Impact vs Effort マトリクスで改善施策を 優先順位付けする。Use when analyzing error scenarios from customer experience perspective, evaluating error message quality, prioritizing error UX improvements, or creating CX-focused error analysis reports. Triggers: "CXエラー分析", "error experience", "エラーUX改善", "customer experience error", "エラーメッセージ品質", "error scenario analysis", "顧客体験エラー評価"

Reads a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, use corrective-action-tracker. 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。

Turns the text of a regulatory change (new regulation, amendment, rule, guidance or standard revision) into a DRAFT impact note: what changed against the prior text where supplied, who is affected as the text scopes it, an obligations table with dates and owners to confirm, and open interpretation questions for legal. States only what the text says; the rest is UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "brief legal on this new regulation", "list what we must do by when under this amendment", "compare the new standard with the version it replaces", "turn this directive into an obligations table" or "what does this rule mean for us". Do not use for assessing existing controls against a requirement set, use controls-gap-pack instead; for gapping a policy against a standard, use policy-gap-review. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Works Council Representative archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, employee-impact risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this as the works council would", "what would the works council say about this rollout", "prepare me for the staff council consultation", "find the employee-impact gaps in this plan" or "pressure-test this deck from the employee representative side". Do not use for people strategy, restructuring or HR policy, use chro-reviewer instead; for whether frontline staff will adopt or work around the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. 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。

Protocol for two LLM agents (Claude, Codex or any other) to agree and work from one shared folder: message format, channels, roles, evidence rules, wake-up alarm and anti-patterns. Triggers: /llm-pact, agree with codex, connect a second agent, pair rules, agent consensus, two-agent protocol.

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。

Submission-grade remote-sensing Nature/high-impact journal figure workflow for Python or R. Use whenever the user asks to create, revise, audit, or polish manuscript figures, multi-panel scientific plots, map-led composites, remote-sensing image plates, sensor/product workflow figures, validation/error/uncertainty panels, or journal-ready SVG/PDF/TIFF outputs, especially for Nature-family, Remote Sensing of Environment, ISPRS, IEEE TGRS, or other high-impact venues. Before plotting, define the figure's conclusion, evidence logic, export needs, and review risks. If the user has not chosen Python or R, ask "Python or R?" and stop. Use only the selected backend for figure generation, previewing, exporting, and QA. Supports matplotlib/seaborn and ggplot2/patchwork/ComplexHeatmap. Not for dashboards or Illustrator/Figma-first infographics. Also trigger on general academic-writing figure needs even without the word "Nature", such as making figures/plots for a paper, scientific/academic plotting, data visualization for a manuscript, and Chinese phrasings like 遥感论文配图、学术写作配图、科研绘图、科研作图、地图出图、论文图表、可视化.

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。

AI 駆動開発のレビュー品質を安定化させるレビュー規律。レビュー対象を分類し、要件・設計・差分・検証・報告を分けて見て、根拠に基づき approved / needs_revision / blocked / rejected を明示し、未検証事項と残リスクを隠さず memory に残す。「レビューして」「PR レビュー」「仕様/設計/差分/検証/報告をレビュー」「セキュリティ影響/データ影響を確認」「完了報告を検証」「/compact 前にレビュー記憶を作る」ときに使う。

Amplify safe or boring designs to make them more visually interesting and stimulating. Increases impact while maintaining usability. Use when the user says the design looks bland, generic, too safe, lacks personality, or wants more visual impact and character.

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。

Perform security testing of SOAP web services by analyzing WSDL definitions and testing for XML injection, XXE, WS-Security bypass, and SOAPAction spoofing.

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。