2,488 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Audit a codebase as a read-only senior advisor, prioritize evidence-backed improvements, and write self-contained implementation plans. Use for codebase audits, improvement roadmaps, focused planning, plan review, plan reconciliation, or executing an existing improve plan through an isolated Codex worktree. The advisor never edits source code; execution uses codex-improve and returns to the main agent for 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。
PCI DSS 4.0.1 compliance audit support skill. Provides expert guidance for Cardholder Data Environment (CDE) scoping, gap analysis, audit preparation, SAQ completion support, and remediation planning. Includes SOC 2 mapping for combined audit efficiency. Use when preparing for PCI DSS audits, conducting gap analysis, creating remediation plans, or answering SAQ questionnaires for payment card compliance.
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。
企画書の良い点・悪い点を分析し、改善点と改善のための問いを生成
MSP計画の良い点・悪い点を分析し、改善点と改善のための問いを生成
因果関係ループ図の良い点・悪い点を分析し、改善点と改善のための問いを生成
因果関係ループ図の作成を実行
MSP計画を作る時の観点を説明する
検証結果に基づいてMSP計画を洗練・修正する
MSP（Minimum Sellable Product）をつくるための計画を作成
企画立案に関するすべての成果物（因果関係ループ図、MSP計画、ゴール記述、企画書）を一括作成する
検証結果に基づいて因果関係ループ図を洗練・修正する
因果関係ループ図を作る時の観点を説明する
企画書を作る時の観点を説明する
検証結果に基づいて企画書を洗練・修正する
匠Methodの成果物から企画書を生成（フォーマット選択可能）
Use when structuring a multi-session learning roadmap with milestones, gates, and pacing calibrated to learner level and goal.
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 advising, planning, reviewing, reporting, operating, or improving CTO and technology leadership work across strategy, cybersecurity management, SME/COE, functional and technical requirements, framework selection, people, organization, delivery, risk, KPI, roadmap, budgeting, governance, audit, R&D, stakeholder communication, culture, politics, and sector-specific leadership.
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。
設計書から実装タスクへの分解を行う。デフォルトで各タスクをGitHub Issueとして起票し（1タスク＝1 Issue、詳細はIssue本文に集約、ラベルでフェーズ・ステータス管理）、ユーザーがファイル管理を明示した場合のみdocs/sdd/tasks/にファイル生成する。AIエージェント向けの具体的な実装指示やTDD手順を定義する。タスク計画フェーズのみを単独で実行する際に使用する。Do NOT use for SDDワークフロー全体の管理（sdd-documentationを使用すること）。
End-of-life detection for runtimes (Node, Python, Java, Go, .NET) and key packages — surfaces past-EOL items, items reaching EOL within 90 days, and EOL base images for containers. Use when planning a runtime upgrade, auditing for unsupported versions, gating a deploy against EOL deps, or producing a remediation 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。
Architecture design and governance protocol for system structure, boundaries, contracts, APIs, schemas, migrations, rewrites, and long-lived codebase health. Use when designing or reviewing architecture, planning structural refactors or migrations, governing tech debt, or containing rewrite risk. Keeps the load-bearing spine small, owned, checked, and deletable over time.
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。
TDD Planning (Spec Anchored) - 얇은 앵커 문서(규칙 + 예제 검산표 + 미확정)를 에이전트 1회 + 사용자 리뷰 1회로 작성. --full로 3단계 풀 플로우(도메인 규칙→예시→테스트 목록). "TDD 계획 문서", "앵커 문서 작성", "테스트 목록 뽑아줘", "plan 세우고 TDD", "/tdd-plan" 요청 시 사용. 단, 요구사항 원천 문서를 먼저 만드는 것은 /tdd-plan-input, plan 합의 후 자율 구현까지는 /tdd-feature가 적합. /tdd-plan [plan-doc-path] [--full]로 호출.
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。
Break an application or feature into thin vertical user-story slices with clear acceptance criteria and user-observable value. Use when planning a backlog, decomposing a feature, writing implementation-ready stories, or turning requirements into deliverable slices.
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。
Post-launch review of a shipped PRD against the brief's success metrics. Did we move the metric? What did the data actually show? Which assumptions held, which broke? Which accepted-gap decisions resolved (confirmed vs. invalidated)? What would we do differently? Triggers on "outcome review", "did it work", "post-launch review", "did we move the metric", "retro the feature", "was it worth it". Produces a Confluence outcome-review page and updates the brief + linked decisions.
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 Marty-Cagan-style opportunity assessment interview and produce a ~2-page Opportunity Brief in Confluence. Covers business objective, customer, problem, success metric, current alternatives, assumptions/risks, and what we don't know yet. Triggers on "opportunity brief", "opportunity assessment", "discovery brief", "who is this for", "why are we building this", "validate this idea", "product discovery", or any request to frame a feature before implementation. One question at a time. Records accepted research gaps as structured Confluence Decision pages with bidirectional links.
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。