「question」の検索結果

Points to the standalone module law-checker ("Legal Department"): source-grounded AI first-look legal assessments for German law with a statute registry and a statute-embodiment agent. Use this skill when a situation, contract, official notice, or legal question under German law should be checked with exact citations (article/section, paragraph, sentence) -- with a clear boundary: AI-assisted first orientation, not a substitute for a lawyer.

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。

Systemische Fragetechniken: Zirkuläre Fragen, Skalierungsfragen, Wunderfrage und Ausnahmefragen zur Reflexion und Perspektiverweiterung.

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。

Fundamentals of therapeutic communication: Active listening, mirroring, paraphrasing, open questions, and validation.

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。

Ordnet freiwillig bereitgestellte Gesundheitsinformationen und bereitet Fragen für Fachpersonen vor.

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。

Answers weather questions for a location or coordinates via wttr.in (free, no API key). Current weather + 3-day forecast. Location comes from the user request or preferences; optional short cache.

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。

Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, use project-status-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 a schedule extract (milestone list or planning tool export) and the period's status notes into a DRAFT plain-language slip explanation: which milestones and activities slipped and by how many working days, arithmetic shown, why per the notes as verbatim fragments with source and date, what each slip pushes next per the extract, and the decision each slip needs framed as a question with the options the notes propose and the owner the governance documents name, every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "explain the schedule slip", "what slipped this month and why", "write the schedule commentary for the steering pack", "put the delay in plain language for the sponsor" or "what decisions do these slips need". Do not use for the weekly status report, use project-status-tracker instead; for cost variances, use budget-variance-explainer; for one sprint's carry-over, use sprint-review-summary. 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。

Writes a DRAFT weekly KPI report from the figures the user pastes or attaches (this week, last week, optionally target and earlier weeks): a metrics table with change versus last week computed only from the stated figures, plain-language notes per metric, and numbered questions on every figure that moved more than the agreed threshold, crossed its target or broke its run. Use when the user asks to "write the weekly KPI report", "turn these numbers into this week's metrics report", "what changed versus last week", "draft the Monday numbers update" or "add commentary to this metrics table". Do not use for a recurring emailed report with a maintained trend sheet, use report-attachment-analyzer instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer. 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。

Compares one policy against one requirement set (standard, regulation, contract schedule or customer requirement) clause by clause and returns a draft gap review: each requirement element, the policy clause that appears to address it, an apparent match state, and every gap as a question with the clause reference on both sides. Never concludes that the policy complies; the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "gap our policy against the standard", "map this policy to the regulation clause by clause", "check the security policy against the customer's contract schedule", "compare our policy with the new edition" or "where does our policy fall short of the requirements". Do not use for mapping a requirement to the operating controls that implement it, use controls-gap-pack instead; for what a regulatory change means for the organisation, use regulatory-change-impact-note. 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。

Builds an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack instead. 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。

Produces a draft controls and gap pack from a requirement, regulation, standard or policy and the organisation's control descriptions: obligations broken out of the source text, the controls that appear to address each, apparent coverage, gaps, questions for control owners and actions to assess. Never concludes compliance or that a control is effective; owners and audit assess. Use when the user asks to "map this regulation to our controls", "run a controls gap analysis", "break this standard into obligations" or "where is our control coverage thin". Do not use for comparing a policy document against a standard, use policy-gap-review instead; to draft evidence requests from the mapped controls, use control-evidence-request-pack. 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 a control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, use claims-evidence-map. 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。

Produces a DRAFT product requirements document from the discovery notes, interview summaries, support themes, analytics notes and stakeholder messages the user provides: problem statement, target users, goals with measures as stated, numbered requirements each with a testable acceptance criterion, non-goals, constraints, dependencies and open questions, with every statement tagged evidenced, assumed or UNKNOWN so each assumption is visible for the product owner to confirm. Use when the user asks to "write a PRD", "draft the product requirements", "turn these discovery notes into requirements", "document what this feature needs to do" or "build the requirements doc for this epic". Do not use for supplier-facing requirements in a tender, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for the change ticket that ships the work, use change-request-pack. 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。

Prepares a DRAFT data incident impact brief from the incident notes and data inventory the user provides: the timeline as stated, systems involved matched to the inventory, data categories held and evidenced as involved, people and record counts potentially affected with the source and method behind every figure, third parties, notification questions for legal and the data protection officer, and every UNKNOWN with the evidence that would settle it. No legal determination: it never states whether the incident is a reportable breach, whether notice is due, to whom or by when. Use when the user asks to "prepare the impact brief for this incident", "what data was involved", "how many people are affected", "map the incident to our data inventory" or "pull together what legal needs on the incident". Do not use for the blameless postmortem or root-cause timeline, use incident-postmortem-drafter instead. 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。

Drafts the instructions field of a declarative agent that orchestrates a set of custom skills, under a character cap (default 8,000), from the skills' names and descriptions: role and scope, one routing rule per skill, workflow order, gates written as workflow holds, global rules, output format and what the agent never does. Returns the text in a fenced block with its character count labelled counted or estimated, plus a skill inventory, routing table, gate table, rules trace and open questions for the owner. Use when the user asks to "write the instructions for my agent", "draft a system prompt that ties these skills together", "tighten these agent instructions to fit the cap", "how should the agent route between these skills" or "revise my agent's orchestration text". Do not use to review a single SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer instead. 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。

Synthesises exit interview notes or leaver survey responses into a DRAFT themed report: coded themes with record counts and shares, anonymised verbatim evidence, breakdowns by broad group only for groups that meet a minimum group size, referred items and open questions for the people team, without naming or identifying any individual. Use when the user asks to analyse, summarise, code, theme or report on exit interviews, leaver feedback, attrition interviews or departure surveys, or says "what are our leavers telling us", "theme these exit interviews" or "summarise the leaver survey". Do not use for customer or product feedback, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis instead; for redacting one document with no theming, use document-deidentification-pass. 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。

Drafts a blameless incident postmortem (summary, impact, timeline, detection and response, contributing factors as candidates for review, action items) from an incident channel export, ticket notes and any alert or change records, with UNKNOWN for every fact the inputs do not contain. Never assigns blame, names a root cause or re-rates severity. Use when the user asks to "write the postmortem for this incident", "build the incident timeline from the chat export", "draft the post-incident review" or "turn this ticket and channel log into an incident report". Do not use for a knowledge article from the resolved ticket, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis; for data-breach impact and notification questions, use data-incident-impact-brief. 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。

Prepares a change request pack (description and justification, scope, schedule, implementation plan, risk as stated, rollback, test evidence as provided, communications, approvals route) from an engineer's notes, ticket or pull request description, with UNKNOWN for anything not provided and a question list for the engineer. Never rates risk or marks a change tested or approved. Use when the user asks to "write the change request for this", "fill in the change ticket from my notes", "prepare the CAB submission" or "turn this pull request into an RFC". Do not use for the step-by-step procedure with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for release notes describing what shipped, use release-notes-writer. 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。

Pre-tests one message (email, announcement, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or slide) against two to six role personas the user supplies and returns a DRAFT panel report: each persona's likely first reaction, objections, unanswered questions, misreadings and what they would do next, every point tied to the passage that triggers it, plus suggested edits that add no fact the message does not already hold. Use when the user asks to "pre-test this message", "how will the team read this", "run this past the personas", "what objections will this raise", "find the holes before I send" or "check this lands with managers and field staff". Do not use for an in-character review of a proposal or business case by one executive archetype, use the executive-review family (cfo-reviewer, frontline-skeptic-reviewer and siblings) instead; to write the message in the first place, use announcement-drafter. 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。

Compares a changed HR policy with the version it replaces and drafts a clause-by-clause change log, a plain-language DRAFT employee briefing, a manager FAQ answered only from the policy text with clause references, and a list of open questions the people team must settle before release. Use when the user asks to explain, announce, summarise or brief a policy change, a new policy version or an updated handbook section, or says "what changed in the leave policy", "brief managers on the new handbook section" or "compare the old and new versions of this policy". Do not use for a single announcement with no version comparison, use announcement-drafter instead; for an FAQ from documents that are not a policy change, use faq-builder; for contract clauses, use clause-comparison-table. 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。

Produces a DRAFT 30-60-90 day onboarding plan for a new hire from the role, the team context and the systems list: phase outcomes traced to the role, activities with a named owner and due window, an access and equipment request table, learning items, manager checkpoints and the items the manager must confirm. Use when the user asks to "build an onboarding plan for our new hire", "draft the induction plan for this role", "write a first 90 days plan", "put together a new starter plan with owners", "create a ramp plan from this job description" or "plan the integration of an internal mover". Do not use for writing the job description itself, use job-description-drafter instead; for interview questions or a scorecard, use interview-scorecard-builder. 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 one meeting transcript or recap into a DRAFT action-items document (decisions, owned and dated action items with verbatim source quotes, open questions), a task list ready for the user to enter into their task tracker, and one DRAFT follow-up email per action owner, all returned in the chat for the user to store, create or send. Use when the user shares, names or points to a meeting transcript or recap and asks to "pull the action items from this transcript", "who owns what after today's call", "draft follow-up emails to each owner" or "turn this recap into tasks". Do not use for full minutes, use meeting-minutes-writer instead; a brief before a meeting is meeting-prep-onepager. 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 a campaign idea, its objectives and the supporting notes (audience material, offer facts, budget and dates, channel list) into one DRAFT one-page campaign brief: objectives, audience, one single-minded message with sourced proof points, channels and timeline, success measures with baselines, mandatories, risks and numbered open questions for the campaign owner. Use when the user asks to "write a campaign brief", "draft a creative brief for this launch", "turn this idea into a one-page brief", "tighten this brief to one page" or "build the marketing brief from these notes". Do not use for a message house, messaging pillars or a launch narrative on its own, use message-house-builder instead; for laying the campaign onto dated slots, use content-calendar-planner. 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。

Drafts one internal or external announcement (email, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or press statement) in the organisation's voice from the facts, audience, sender and style guide the user provides, with a fact trace, reader-questions check, pre-send checks and an approvals checklist left blank for the named approvers. Use when the user asks to "announce this change to all staff", "draft the customer notice", "write the town hall script", "prepare a holding statement" or "rewrite this in our voice". Do not use for a digest of several items, use internal-newsletter-drafter instead; to pre-test a drafted message against personas, use communication-pretest-panel. 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。