4,353 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Merge PR, wait for deploy, verify production health. 10-step workflow: pre-flight, CI check, readiness gate, merge (respects merge queue), detect platform, wait for deploy, canary verification, revert option, deploy report. Auto-detects Fly, Render, Vercel, Netlify, Heroku, GitHub Actions.
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 Laravel 10+ applications with Eloquent models, Sanctum authentication, Horizon queues, RESTful APIs with API resources, and Livewire reactive interfaces.
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。
Configures monitoring systems, implements structured logging, creates Prometheus/Grafana dashboards, defines alerting rules, instruments distributed tracing, and performs load testing.
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。
Check and compare software component versions on SageMaker HyperPod cluster nodes - NVIDIA drivers, CUDA toolkit, cuDNN, NCCL, EFA, AWS OFI NCCL, GDRCopy, MPI, Neuron SDK (Trainium/Inferentia), Python, and PyTorch. Use when checking component versions, verifying CUDA/driver compatibility, detecting version mismatches across nodes, planning upgrades, documenting cluster configuration, or troubleshooting version-related issues on HyperPod. Triggers on requests about versions, compatibility, component checks, or upgrade planning for HyperPod clusters.
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 project-specific Trellis coding specs with a platform-neutral single-agent workflow. Use when creating or refreshing .trellis/spec guidelines, analyzing a codebase with GitNexus, ABCoder, or source inspection, decomposing package/layer spec work, and writing real codebase-backed spec docs without placeholder text.
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。
Comprehensive quality verification: spec compliance, lint, type-check, tests, cross-layer data flow, code reuse, and consistency checks. Use when code is written and needs quality verification, before committing changes, or to catch context drift during long sessions.
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。
Transform monolithic Terraform configurations into reusable, maintainable modules following HashiCorp's module design principles and community best practices.
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。
Import a deliverable template as a reusable placeholder template per brand. "use this proposal structure"
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 two or more band-tagged frameworks and produces a framework-neutral topic matrix showing coverage and gaps across all inputs, plus an optional reference-centric PLC crosswalk document when a reference framework is supplied.
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。
When the user wants multiple expert perspectives on a marketing question — a simulated board of advisors staffed by legendary marketers (Seth Godin, David Ogilvy, Eugene Schwartz, April Dunford, Rory Sutherland, Alex Hormozi, Byron Sharp, and more). Also use when the user mentions 'marketing council,' 'board of advisors,' 'advisory board,' 'what would Seth Godin say,' 'what would Ogilvy think,' 'channel Hormozi,' 'get multiple perspectives,' 'debate this,' 'have the council review,' 'marketing mentors,' or asks how a famous marketer would approach their problem. The council gives each advisor's take through their documented frameworks, surfaces where they disagree, and synthesizes a recommendation. For executing the winning direction, hand off to positioning, offers, copywriting, ads, or the relevant 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。
Guide for (a) auditing an existing whistleblower system or (b) drafting a compliant reporting policy from a provided template. Covers EU Directive 2019/1937, the amended Sapin II law (Waserman 2022), Decree 2022-1284, CNIL guidelines, public sector requirements, and duty of vigilance.
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 CONTRACT DRAFTING — generating, redlining, or rewriting contract language from instructions. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Contract Drafting). 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 should I use to draft this clause/agreement", "best AI for drafting contracts", "route this drafting task", or is about to generate/redline contract text and hasn't fixed a 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。
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。
Verification-first methodology for the UNMIK Regulation 64 Panels of the Kosovo district courts (2000–2008). Citations are verified against UNMIK/EULEX archives and legal-tools.org. Keeps the Reg. 64 Panels distinct from the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and clarifies that Reg. 2000/64 permitted (did not impose) internationally-majority panels. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills
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 INFO EXTRACTION — pulling facts, clauses, dates, parties, obligations, and structured fields out of contracts and legal documents. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Info Extraction; CUAD/MAUD/ACORD). 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 should I use to extract clauses/data from these documents", "best AI for contract data extraction", "route this extraction task", or is about to pull structured fields from legal docs 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。
Pick the right LLM for LEGAL TRANSLATION — translating contracts, statutes, case law, and legal correspondence across languages, including Arabic/MENA. Vendor-neutral routing triangulated from mid-2026 evidence (WMT25 human eval, SwiLTra-Bench legal-MT, multilingual-reasoning proxies, ArabLegalEval). There is NO clean legal-translation leaderboard, so this vertical is directional and treats human legal-linguist review as mandatory. Asks up to 4 quick questions (language pair, cost, speed, privacy/certification), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to translate this contract/statute", "best AI for legal translation", "translate this legal doc to/from Arabic", or is about to machine-translate legal text 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。
Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT REVIEW — reviewing an existing agreement for risk, deviations from standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks. Contract review is a COMPOSITE skill (extraction + reasoning + redlining + conflict-detection), so this routes by the dominant sub-task. 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 to review this contract / NDA / MSA", "best AI to redline", "route this contract review", or is about to review an agreement 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。
Rédaction de requêtes devant le Conseil de prud'hommes pour contester un licenciement pour faute grave. Utiliser ce skill quand l'utilisateur demande de rédiger une requête CPH, contester un licenciement pour faute grave, préparer une saisine du CPH pour un litige lié à un licenciement, ou créer un document de contestation de licenciement en droit du travail français.
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 an application or system — including one built quickly with AI coding agents — needs a security review with regulatory grounding: a STRIDE threat model, a LINDDUN privacy threat model, a dependency exposure screen against live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS data, or a selected, non-exhaustive screen of which EU security obligations (GDPR, NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act, AI Act) may apply and which need determination. Orchestrates the server-enforced threat-modeling workflows of the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector and grounds every regulatory statement in officially published text fetched at answer time — scope, role, and application-date limits stated, never a compliance verdict. Never simulates a workflow and never answers legal questions from model memory.
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。
Generates standalone interactive HTML "deal cards" that translate complex regulations into negotiation-ready reference tools, systematically distinguishing mandatory obligations from negotiable implementation choices. Use when the user needs an interactive regulatory guide for (1) contract negotiation support, (2) client education or internal training, (3) regulatory briefings for commercial stakeholders, or (4) structured comparison between required and flexible compliance paths. Primary focus on EU digital regulation (Data Act, AI Act, CRA, DORA, NIS2, GDPR) but the structural pattern transfers to any regulation where separating hard obligations from implementation choice is the point. Supports bilingual output where the jurisdiction calls for 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。
Screen a client, counterparty, payer or corporate against the sanctions lists published by the designating authorities themselves — the UK Sanctions List (FCDO), OFSI, the UN Security Council, the EU consolidated list and OFAC's SDN and non-SDN lists. Use when onboarding, before taking a payment, before completing a transaction, or whenever a name must be checked against sanctions. Produces candidates and provenance, never a clearance: the record names every list searched with its publication date and count, states what was NOT searched, and ends at a blank decision block. Fails closed — a cache that is missing, damaged, truncated or stale is reported NOT SEARCHED and the process exits non-zero, so nothing can read an incomplete run as clean. Matches across transliteration, diacritics, homoglyphs and initials, because nobody spells a name the way the publisher does. Standard library only; screening opens no network connection.
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。
Assess, report, and manage serious incidents involving high-risk AI systems under Article 73 EU AI Act. Covers incident qualification, deadline buckets (2/10/15 days), authority notification, deployer duties (Art. 26(5)), cross-regulation mapping (GDPR/NIS2/MDR), corrective measures, and DACH-specific routing. Use when asked to evaluate whether an AI incident is reportable, draft an Article 73 notification, identify the right authority, or build an AI incident response process.
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。
Adjudicates whether a hit generated by sanctions, PEP, or adverse-media screening is a true positive, false positive, or requires human escalation. Use whenever a user presents a screening alert, a name match against a watchlist (OFAC SDN, EU consolidated list, UK OFSI, UN list, PEP list, adverse media hit, etc.), or asks to clear a screening hit / reduce false positives / determine whether a flagged name is actually the listed party. Use even when the user describes the task casually — "is this person actually on the sanctions list", "did we get a real match", "clear this alert", "I have a hit on X" — these are all screening-adjudication tasks. Produces a deterministic determination with full audit trail (structured JSON + human-readable narrative). Designed for use by compliance analysts and screening systems.
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。
Find and quote statutory and regulatory law with the LibreJustice MCP tools — French codes at any date, EU law, treaties and bilateral accords, foreign codes (59 countries), collective agreements, BOFiP, circulaires. Use whenever the user asks what a text says or said at a given date, which version or which text applies to a situation, needs the exact wording of a provision for a brief, or works with foreign or international law in French litigation, even if they never mention LibreJustice.
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。