2,669 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Research one agent harness's release (docs, source, runtime) and fill its capability cells in scripts/harness_capabilities.py with cited evidence. Use after a harness version bump, when just harness-probe reports re-research, or when capability cells read unknown.
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。
Shared in-workflow quality gates for code/PR skills — the gate model, trust tiers, and the three primitives (evidence-before-done, independent judge, anti-gaming). DO NOT TRIGGER directly — referenced by consumer skills via relative path.
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。
The kpopper method: a knowledge record (GROUNDING.yaml) for work that gets revisited - what is known, where each piece came from, and what would make each conclusion wrong. Use when asked what kpopper is or how to keep a record, when choosing which kpopper skill fits a moment, or when no narrower one does. The occasions have their own skills: ground (read the record before answering), record (write what the work found), map (map existing materials), annotated-doc (a standalone HTML document with evidence), hub (the record's visual home), consolidate (hypotheses and merges), watch (background checks).
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。
Validate trained models and analytical claims against their intended decision, independent evidence, and human-reviewed ground truth. Use when reviewing model performance, analysis conclusions, launch claims, or evaluation reports; use failure diagnosis instead when the main task is locating a known defect.
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。
Audit datasets, joins, labels, and ground truth before analysis or modeling. Use when data meaning, row grain, time semantics, source-of-truth reliability, or label construction may invalidate conclusions; not for general model evaluation after the evidence base is already trusted.
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。
Enforce traceability from natural-language intent to machine predicates, final observables, evidence, and owner-readable acceptance. Use when conducting any audit, review, QA pass, parity or compliance check, security assessment, code or architecture review, visual or behavioral comparison, data validation, system verification, completion gate, or claim that an implementation satisfies a human request.
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 for every progress update, status report, problem explanation, ETA, review, acceptance, or completion report to the operator/owner, especially when they ask “到哪了”, “什么问题”, “做了什么”, “结果呢”, “还要多久”, or “说人话”. Translate technical evidence into visible or operational outcomes before details.
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 verifying a story or ticket implementation against its spec and acceptance criteria - per-AC verdicts with file:line evidence and proving tests, code reuse and design conformance, dead code, stale docs, comment discipline. Finds the spec from an explicit path, the ticket key in the branch name, or plan files - and asks rather than guessing. For defect-hunting code review use dotnet-techne-code-review instead. Keywords: story QA, acceptance criteria, spec conformance, AC coverage, definition of done, dead code check, reuse check, comment check, verify story, QA this branch.
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。
Bootstrap or harden a project's operating model for mixed human and AI delivery teams. Use when starting a repository, adopting an agent harness, defining authority and risk tiers, coordinating parallel agents safely, binding evidence and review to an exact candidate, or correcting fragmented rules that prevent coherent, consistent, complete delivery.
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。
Govern discovery, eligibility, and submission of a plugin or skill to official directories, registries, marketplaces, and curated GitHub lists. Use when preparing or sending plugin listings, marketplace forms, directory PRs, or repository recommendations; require current policy evidence and a final human confirmation before every external submission.
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。
Pursue an agreed goal to a working outcome without waiting: decompose it, re-prioritise as evidence arrives, branch, gate, get an independent review (a different model or a fresh reviewer subagent — the writer never approves), merge, prune, and bank the operator's decisions in STATUS.md instead of blocking on them. Trigger on "get it done", "don't wait for me", "proceed autonomously", or when an epic or roadmap objective is handed over. Not a close-out: this work set is expected to grow.
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 SRE checkup of any GCP project: deterministic probes of the edge, Cloud Run services, 7-day error logs, Cloud Scheduler, alert policies and uptime checks, Secret Manager and IAM, the data stores and the machine's own scheduled jobs, audited into one fixed status table (LIVE / WARNING / RED / INCONCLUSIVE) with evidence, findings by severity, what could not be checked, and a single OVERALL line delivered as one notification. Parametrised by a per-project manifest, so the same routine runs on every project. Use when the operator says "cloud checkup", "SRE check", "is everything live", "what's healthy / warning / red", "any errors this week", "audit the infra", "weekly checkup", "set up the weekly checkup", before a deploy or demo, or after an incident. Cloud Run first; App Engine and GKE differ only in the serving probes.
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 revising or reviewing scientific, technical, or academic manuscripts, proposals, abstracts, reports, or related writing for precision, concision, logical cohesion, citation support, evidence alignment, and objective scholarly tone.
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 CJK (Korean, Japanese, Chinese) text-wrapping issues in web UIs. Systematically traces mid-syllable breaks, orphaned glyphs, and awkward line splits through a layered fix strategy covering global CSS cascade, component-library overrides, headline balancing, and translation-level phrase binding. Produces an evidence-based diagnosis and verification report before any code change is applied.
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 BEFORE planning/coding against a DB schema, API/GraphQL shape, DTO/Model/Entity, or vendor package — read the real source, emit an Evidence Report, stop inventing fields.
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 the user wants a security-maturity scorecard / posture assessment of a module — category ratings with evidence, not a vulnerability hunt. Also on 'wie sicher ist dieses Modul aufgestellt?'
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 a bug has multiple plausible causes across layers — competing hypotheses, validation loops, evidence-based conclusions — even when the user just says 'why is this happening?'.
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。
Single-pass tech-stack detection with an agents/evidence/analysis/ write-up; explicit request only. Deep multi-pass audit → universal-project-analysis. Raw primitives → project-analysis-core.
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 adjudicating an operational go/no-go from typed evidence — a readiness enum with an explicit floor where one red is not-ready, unknown is never green, and no score can average a red away.
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 establishing what observability a project actually has — the four Golden Signals, required signal to detected implementation to evidence, and SLI/SLO provenance.
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 a release review needs machine-derived evidence from git history — hotspot risk and change-coupling analyzers. Triggers on 'hotspot', 'what changes together', 'release forensics'.
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 constructing the forecast call — commit / best-case / pipeline categorisation, deal-level evidence test, accuracy retro-loop. Triggers on 'build the forecast', 'why does our commit miss'.
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 qualifying or disqualifying a single deal — MEDDIC slots with evidence, inversion test, disqualification heuristic. Triggers on 'is this deal real', 'should we walk away'.
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。
[Documentation] Use to author, audit, amend, or test-spec a business Feature Spec. The single spec skill — modes draft|init|update|audit|amend create/maintain the tech-free 8-section Feature Spec; draft authors a provisional spec from an idea/requirement (no code yet, Evidence: TBD); tests generates Section 8 TC-{FEATURE}-{NNN} test specifications; sync reconciles §8 TCs ↔ executing test code. Per-mode procedure lives in references/{author,tests,sync}.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。