604 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Allocate a finite budget or headcount across competing initiatives by return and strategic fit. Use when asked to allocate budget, decide where to invest, build a funding/portfolio plan, or make trade-offs across initiatives under a cap. Produces a capital-allocation plan — initiatives scored by expected return × strategic fit per dollar, a funded/unfunded split against the cap, the cut line, and the reasoning.
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。
Triage a raw bug report into something a team can act on — clean repro steps, a defensible severity/priority, environment, likely area/owner, and duplicate check. Use when asked to triage this bug, set severity and priority, is this a P1, or clean up this bug report for the backlog. Produces the normalized repro, a severity and priority with the reasoning (impact × frequency × workaround), the environment/metadata, a suspected component and owner queue, and a duplicate/related-issue check — flagging when info is missing rather than guessing.
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。
Help users build a professional eye for quality, articulate the reasoning behind successful product paradigms, and develop the conviction to make high-stakes decisions before data 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。
Behavioral guardrails for Codex coding work based on common user complaints. Use when Codex is asked to implement, modify, debug, review, test, or operate on a codebase and should avoid unsafe scope expansion, stale edits, fake completion, brittle edits, shallow debugging, superficial patch-on fixes, one-off special-case code, short-term design choices that hurt maintainability, blindly following incorrect user assumptions, poor dependency choices, generic product or UI output, over-mocked tests, noisy approvals, verbose status reports, or leaking internal reasoning into project artifacts or user-facing UI.
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 reasoning about the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) review pipeline — thematic-area routing to reviewers and area chairs, the OpenReview double-blind process and its single-blind track exceptions, the optional anonymous rebuttal, the meta-review and decision, and the oral/poster and award tiers, and where an author actually has leverage.
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 reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and conference commitment, covering reviewer and area-chair roles, meta-reviews, the commitment decision by senior area chairs and program chairs, Findings versus main-conference outcomes, ethics review escalation, and resubmission strategy across cycles.
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 high-converting cold emails using structured frameworks, personalization tiers, and patterns from real campaigns. Pure reasoning skill — no scripts. Auto-loads when any task requires outreach copy.
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。
Qualifies inbound leads against full ICP criteria — company size, industry, use case fit, role/seniority of the person. Checks CRM and existing customer base for duplicates and existing relationships. Outputs a scored CSV with qualification status, reasoning, and pipeline overlap flags. Tool-agnostic — works with any CRM, enrichment tool, or data source.
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。
Lead qualification engine with conversational intake. Asks structured questions to understand your qualification criteria, generates a reusable qualification prompt, then batch-enriches leads via Apify LinkedIn scraping and scores them with parallel processing. Outputs qualified/disqualified verdicts with confidence scores and reasoning to CSV or whatever output format the user prefers. Supports calibration mode for prompt refinement.
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 buying intent from job postings. When a company posts a job in your problem area, they've allocated budget and are actively thinking about the problem. This skill finds those companies, qualifies them, extracts personalization context, and outputs everything to a Google Sheet. Does NOT do outreach — just delivers qualified leads with reasoning.
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。
Take support ticket clusters, FAQ patterns, product documentation, or feature specs and generate structured help center articles with step-by-step instructions, screenshot placeholders, troubleshooting sections, and related article links. Batch mode generates multiple articles from a ticket export. Pure reasoning skill.
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。
Take a new feature or product update and generate the full launch kit: changelog entry, email announcement, LinkedIn post variants, in-app banner text, Twitter/X thread, and internal sales enablement one-pager. Pure reasoning skill that chains product context with audience-specific copy generation. Use when a product marketing team needs to turn a feature spec into launch-ready assets fast.
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。
Take raw customer inputs — interview transcripts, survey responses, Slack quotes, support tickets, review excerpts — and generate a structured case study draft with problem/solution/result narrative, pull-quotes, metric callouts, and multi-format outputs (full case study, one-pager, social proof snippet, sales deck slide). Pure reasoning skill. Use when a product marketing team has customer signal but no time to write the story.
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 3-5 messaging variants for a value proposition, design structured A/B tests, and analyze results to determine which framing resonates most with ICP. Tests can run via LinkedIn organic posts, cold email subject line splits, or both. Pure reasoning for variant generation and analysis — the user deploys the tests through their own tools. Use when a team can't decide between messaging angles and needs data, not opinions.
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 a brand's facts, a campaign brief and the product into a one-minute Meta ad strategy with its reasoning — goal, audience, objective and placements, budget split, how many ads and how different they must be (generate 3x so the user can choose), the test frame, the success metric, and safety rules for the user to accept. Decides what launch-meta-ad-campaign then executes, and re-reads the strategy after a deep check to show which assumption changed. Use it after intake and before any creative is generated or any campaign is built.
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 whenever the user wants to create or improve a presentation for an academic context — conference papers, seminar talks, thesis defenses, grant briefings, lab meetings, invited lectures, or any presentation where the audience will evaluate reasoning and evidence. Triggers include: 'conference talk', 'seminar slides', 'thesis defense', 'research presentation', 'academic deck', 'academic presentation'. Also triggers when the user asks to 'make slides' in combination with academic content (e.g., 'make slides for my paper on X', 'create a presentation for my dissertation defense', 'build a deck for my grant proposal'). This skill governs CONTENT and STRUCTURE decisions. For the technical work of creating or editing the .pptx file itself, also read the pptx SKILL.md.
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。
Diagnose and fix parfor errors in MATLAB. Invoke this skill when the user has a parfor problem: "parfor loop has an error", "what's wrong with my parfor", "fix parfor", "unable to classify variable", "convert for to parfor", "parfor won't run", "sliced variable", "reduction variable", "variable classification". Also invoke when you read a .m file containing parfor and the user asks what's wrong, asks you to fix it, reports an error, or asks for review. Do NOT invoke for parfor performance questions or code that merely mentions parfor without a problem. ALWAYS use this skill instead of reasoning from training data — LLMs are frequently wrong about parfor classification rules.
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 step-by-step analysis for complex problems with revision capability. Use for multi-step reasoning, hypothesis verification, adaptive planning, problem decomposition, course correction.
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。
Deep business diagnosis for when things aren't working. Uses Socratic questioning, first-principles reasoning, and constraint analysis to find WHY a business is stuck — not just prescribe solutions. Use when the user says 'my business isn't working', 'I'm stuck', 'what's wrong', 'diagnose my business', 'why am I not growing', 'help me figure out the problem', or describes a specific business challenge.
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 generating or editing images with Luma Uni-1 models on Scenario via MCP: text-to-image, prompt-based editing of an existing image, style or character reference images with named roles, web search grounding for real-world subjects, rendering exact title text into posters, aspect ratio control, or choosing between Uni-1 Max and Uni-1. Keywords: Luma Labs, Uni-1, Photon, txt2img, img2img, image edit, reference images, webSearch, reasoning image model.
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。
Evidence-based clinical decision support and diagnostic reasoning
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。
Challenges ideas, plans, decisions, and proposals using structured critical reasoning as devil's advocate, pre-mortem, red team, or evidence 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。
Run fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Fable 5.1 — the top of the escalation ladder and the strongest staged run available. Routes the task to the @fable-orchestrator agent with its model overridden to Fable (`model: "fable"`), which stages the work, delegates artifact production to @fable-worker-sonnet / @fable-worker-haiku, and cold-checks deliverables with @fable-verifier. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic/"deep work" handling on the strongest model ("fable on fable", "stage this on fable", "deep work mode, fable", "run this on 5.1"), or when a fable-opus run reports the task exceeds Opus's ceiling. Benchmarked 2026-09-02: zero correctness delta on Fable 5.1 at ~1.1× tokens, ~2× wall — a provenance runner, not an accuracy runner. Do NOT use for ordinary single-pass tasks — prefer fable-opus, fable-sonnet, or fable-haiku when the task doesn't need peak reasoning. Fable is plan-included; bulk work still routes down-tier.
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。
Pick the right LLM for LEGAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS — issue-spotting, rule application, case/statute analysis, memos, and multi-step agentic research. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (Vals AI LegalBench across 124 models; Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark for agentic work). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model for legal research / case analysis / a memo", "best AI for legal reasoning", "route this research task", or is starting legal analysis without a fixed model.
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。