「question」の検索結果

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate 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。

Synthesises a batch of customer feedback (survey answers, reviews, ticket and chat comments) into a DRAFT themed report: coded themes with record counts and shares, anonymised verbatim quotes cited to record codes, contradictions and unverified claims, and the follow-up questions to answer next. Produces no sentiment score or percentage positive as fact; ratings appear only as distributions with n. Use when the user asks to "theme this feedback", "what are customers saying", "summarise these survey answers", "analyse these reviews", "find the top complaints in these comments" or "code this voice of the customer data". Do not use for exit interviews, use exit-interview-synthesis instead; for sorting a live queue and drafting replies, use ticket-triage-pack; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis. 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 plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-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。

Reads one spreadsheet, CSV export or pasted table together with the user's question and drafts an insight pack: a data profile, observations cited to named columns and values and framed as leads, caveats, and suggested charts and follow-up analyses. Every figure carries the label "as read, verify in source"; correlation is never stated as causation. Use when the user asks to "profile this spreadsheet", "what does this data say", "find anomalies in this extract", "give me a first read on this CSV" or "summarise this table". Do not use for a purchase order log or spend extract, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; for actuals versus budget, use budget-variance-explainer instead; for a report that arrives by email on a schedule, use report-attachment-analyzer 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, pricing plan, go-to-market plan or forecast in character as a Chief Revenue Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to exact passages, revenue risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CRO review", "pressure-test the revenue plan", "what would sales leadership say about this" or "challenge this forecast". Do not use for partnership, deal-structure or market-positioning reviews, use cbo-reviewer instead; for the finance seat use cfo-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。

Builds a DRAFT interface register between disciplines or parties from meeting notes, action lists and drawings or document lists: one row per interface with the requesting and providing party, the information needed, the related document number, the need-by date with its source, the status as minuted and a quoted source, plus UNKNOWN and questions where the notes are silent. Never sets a date, rates priority, assigns ownership beyond what the notes state or closes an interface. Use when the user asks to "build an interface register from these minutes", "list the interfaces between piping and civil", "who owes what to whom on this package", "update the interface register from this week's meeting" or "turn these action items into an interface list". Do not use for recording a design or document change raised in a meeting, use management-of-change-intake 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-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。

Author Mermaid diagrams that parse the first time: choose the right diagram type for the question, write syntax the parser accepts, and keep the picture readable in a narrow panel. A bundled reference covers complex, large diagrams.

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。

Render a web page on the host and measure it - screenshots, computed styles, element boxes and post-script text - when a page only exists after its scripts run or when the question is about layout. Covers choosing between web_fetch and a render, reading a design's real measurements, comparing viewports, and the egress policy that decides what may be reached.

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 or enable Session Cartographer semantic search in Codex, including least-privilege localhost access to local Qdrant and the embedding server. Use when setup, Qdrant health, localhost reachability, sandbox network denial, or semantic indexing is in question.

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。

Recall past work across Claude Code and Codex sessions. Finds decisions, research, fixes, and conversations by intent; with only a project and no question, orients on that project's recent state.

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。

Fetch up-to-date library, framework, and SDK documentation via Context7's search and docs endpoints. Use when the user asks about a library/API (React, Next.js, Prisma, Supabase, Tailwind, Django, Vue, etc.) and you need current docs, not Claude's training-time knowledge. Skip this skill for generic programming questions that don't require library-specific docs.

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。

Collective research memory for AI coding agents — search prior research before hitting the web, save findings back to the shared cache, view karma stats. Use when the user asks a library/API/framework question, before running WebSearch/WebFetch, or after deep web research so the next agent doesn't repay the cost. Talks directly to the hosted MCP endpoint via JSON-RPC — no local MCP server required.

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。

Query PostHog product analytics via REST API — event analytics, HogQL SQL queries, feature flags, experiments, session recordings, insights, persons, cohorts. Use when the user wants to answer an analytics question, toggle/inspect a flag, or pull event data programmatically without opening the PostHog UI or installing the PostHog MCP.

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。

Implement, debug and review code with focused checks. Use to fix a bug or failing test, refactor, remove code, perform a code review, or plan engineering work in repository records. Combine with UI for interface concerns and Plan for its native records. Excludes conceptual questions unrelated to a codebase.

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 working with TBQ3 or TB language code, including strategy generation, syntax questions, trading functions, Bar strategies, event-driven trading, Plot drawing, examples, or TB-specific code 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。

Short alias for /llms: settle the current question through a targeted, bounded consensus of other LLMs. Use when you want outside models to agree or disagree with a plan before acting. All logic lives in the llms skill. Triggers: /LLLL, llll.

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。

Have the second brain ask the owner five hard questions about their own long-held beliefs and codex entries that have not been revisited, so assumptions stop fossilizing. Monthly or on demand. Triggers: "/five-hard", "challenge my beliefs", "pressure-test my views".

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。

Ask the second brain in plain words: semantic search over the curated vault with embeddings plus a reranker, returning the smallest relevant slice instead of a corpus dump. Token-cheap. Triggers: "/ask <question>", "what do I have on <topic>", "what did I write about 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。

Research any open-source repository end to end and answer the core question — SHOULD YOU contribute to it? — with a GO / NO-GO / GO-IF verdict backed by evidence: snapshot, momentum, contribution landscape (PR acceptance rates, outside-contributor merge rates, first-timer outcomes), issue health, governance, community sentiment, and a final go/no-go recommendation. Use when the user asks 'should I contribute to X', wants a before-I-contribute due-diligence check on a project, asks whether a project accepts outside PRs, wants contribution-health numbers like PR merge rates or stale-PR counts, or asks for a deep dive on an open-source codebase's health and dynamics before investing time in it.

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。

**MANDATORY for ALL MCP server work** - mcp-use framework best practices and patterns. **READ THIS FIRST** before any MCP server work, including: - Creating new MCP servers - Modifying existing MCP servers (adding/updating tools, resources, prompts, widgets) - Debugging MCP server issues or errors - Reviewing MCP server code for quality, security, or performance - Answering questions about MCP development or mcp-use patterns - Making ANY changes to server.tool(), server.resource(), server.prompt(), or widgets This skill contains critical architecture decisions, security patterns, and common pitfalls. Always consult the relevant reference files BEFORE implementing MCP features.

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。

Ask real executives and domain experts a question through Instant Expert for a written answer or short call: practitioner knowledge, customer discovery. Free test mode; live sends need approval.

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。