「re-testing」の検索結果

Guides audit follow-up and verification processes including follow-up scheduling, remediation effectiveness testing, finding closure criteria, re-testing procedures, status reporting, and escalation of unremediated findings. Implements IIA Standard 2500 monitoring requirements and ISO 19011 follow-up guidance for privacy audit engagements. Keywords: audit follow-up, verification testing, finding closure, remediation effectiveness, re-testing, follow-up audit.

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。

開発前に製品の狙いを検証し、企画の実行判断、利用開始時のつまずき、機能の優先順位を整理します。根拠と次の行動を含む企画書やロードマップにまとめます。

• 曖昧なアイデアを企画書にしたいとき
• 開発する機能の優先順位付け
• 公開前の導入体験の点検

Red-team a PRD, roadmap, or strategy by attacking its load-bearing assumptions before reality does. Steelmans then attacks each claim, ranks failure modes by impact × likelihood × cheapness-to-test, and returns the cheapest test and kill criteria for each. Use when stress-testing a plan, pressure-testing a strategy, challenging assumptions, or preparing a doc for executive 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。

Test system for Megatron-LM. Covers test layout, recipe YAML structure, adding and running unit and functional tests, golden values, marker filters, and CI parity.

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。

Review designs, products, and features with Steve Jobs' standards: ruthless simplicity, focus, and end-to-end excellence. Use when the user mentions "Steve Jobs review", "design review", "product review", "what would Steve do", "insanely great", "this feels too complicated", "too many features", "product taste", "saying no", or "is this good enough to ship". Also trigger when critiquing a UI, feature, or roadmap for focus and simplicity, cutting scope to the essential, or pressure-testing the whole experience from first run to daily use. Covers the simplicity audit, the no list, design-is-how-it-works, end-to-end ownership, demo culture, and a Jobs-style review protocol with binary verdicts. For visual design fundamentals, see refactoring-ui. For usability audits, see ux-heuristics. For detail polish, see microinteractions.

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。

Explores the problem and the range of possible approaches before any code is written — clarifying what is actually being asked, surfacing options with their tradeoffs, and converging on one. Use this at the start of any feature, component, or behavior change, when a request is ambiguous, when the first idea is the only idea on the table, or when a design decision needs pressure-testing before commitment.

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 the marketing plan of record — objectives, channel mix, budget allocation, sequencing, and the measurement that says whether it worked. Use this for annual or quarterly planning, when budget must be allocated or defended, when marketing activity feels busy but undirected, or when a plan needs pressure-testing before commitment.

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。

Evaluates a software or startup idea against problem, market, competition, monetization, defensibility, and execution, and returns a verdict rather than encouragement. Use this when an idea needs pressure-testing before anyone builds, when deciding whether something is worth pursuing, when assessing competition or willingness to pay, or when a validated idea needs a first-customers and MVP plan. Default to scrutiny; the useful answer is usually the unwelcome one.

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。

Sets direction, allocates capital and attention, and makes the calls no one else can make. Use this when a decision spans more than one function, when priorities conflict and something must be cut, when a plan needs pressure-testing before commitment, or when the question is what the organization should do rather than how to do it. Also use to route a request to the right executive when it is unclear who owns 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。

Use when defining ambiguous or high-complexity new features, product behavior, UI/component design, architecture choices, contract changes, or when grilling/pressure-testing a plan or design. Routine small requests stay on the fast 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。

Use when evaluating, designing, or pressure-testing the business model of an AI agent product. Triggers on "agent business model", "agent economics", "agent canvas", "evaluate agent product", "agent pricing", "agent unit economics", "agentic business", "AI agent company", "agent cost 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。

Grounded in first principles, rigorously examine and refine a user's plan, task, decision, goal, strategy, proposal, or idea through structured, progressively deeper questioning, in order to bridge the gap between the User and the Agent. Use when the user explicitly requests grilling, challenge, pressure-testing, cross-examination, red-team review, pre-mortem analysis, or a decision audit. The goal is to uncover unclear objectives, hidden assumptions, contradictions, weak evidence, missing information, overlooked constraints, dependencies, risks, trade-offs, failure modes, and misalignment between intended outcomes and likely real-world results. Begin by establishing a shared understanding of the user's actual intent, goals, constraints, and success criteria. Ask focused, high-leverage questions rather than broad or repetitive ones. Adapt each question based on previous answers, probing deeper where uncertainty, unsupported assumptions, or strategic weaknesses remain. Regularly summarize the current understanding of the user's intent and position to confirm alignment, expose misunderstandings, and refine the problem or goal definition. Distinguish facts, assumptions, hypotheses, and unknowns. Challenge reasoning rigorously while remaining constructive, respectful, and solution-oriented. Continue until the reasoning is internally coherent, evidence-aware, constraint-conscious, risk-assessed, and translated into a clearer, more actionable goal, decision, or plan. Ultimately, achieving the super-alignment.

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 product or feature idea needs pressure-testing against problem, user, pain, success, and timing.

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 design needs pressure-testing for UX, information architecture, states, and accessibility.

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 engineering plan needs pressure-testing for architecture, complexity, data, risk, and operability.

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 product idea needs pressure-testing against alternatives, category, urgency, and distribution.

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 current decision needs pressure-testing until the rationale is clear to a skeptic. Not for tasks requiring source or remote-system changes.

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 task needs the judgment of an Art Director — commissioning and choosing between divergent creative concepts for a campaign, triaging client feedback into concept vs. execution notes, pressure-testing a concept against a production budget/timeline before it's locked in, or managing a shoot/production budget across a multi-deliverable campaign.

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。

Council — 5 independent AI perspectives + mutual critique + synthesis (adapted from karpathy/llm-council for Claude Code). For high-stakes decisions where the answer does NOT follow unambiguously from the data — go/no-go before real consequences, critiquing a methodology, choosing between competing approaches, pressure-testing a conclusion you're attached to, designing risk controls. NOT for log/data analysis (the council has no data access) and not for factual lookups. Triggers — "convene the council", "run it past the council", "go/no-go", "pressure-test this".

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。

Prepare and risk-check the next rolling-wave slice for implementation. Use when the user wants to continue a rolling-wave project, draft one bounded slice in the main context by default, use a fresh planning author only when context or discovery cost warrants it, use a fresh preparation reviewer when semantic risk or uncertainty warrants independent pressure-testing, decompose parallel implementation chunks where appropriate, identify agent, human, either, or hybrid execution fit, write or update docs/rolling-wave/{project}/slices/NNN-slug.md, and mark that slice ready even when other slices are active.

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。

[Decision Support] Use when pressure-testing irreversible, high-stakes decisions with adversarial AI advisors.

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。

Strategy cascade based on Roger Martin and A.G. Lafley's Playing to Win framework. Five interconnected choices that define a real strategy — not a vision statement, not a list of priorities, not a strategic plan that's really just a budget with adjectives. Runs in three modes — Diagnostic for building or rebuilding the full cascade, Review for pressure-testing an existing one, and Alert Triggers for defining the tripwires that tell you the cascade is breaking. Updates company-context.md after every run. Triggers on questions about strategy, strategic choices, winning aspiration, where to play, how to win, competitive strategy, or when someone says "we need a strategy" and means it. Based on practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).

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。

Teststrategie-Berater für Softwareprojekte — wählt die richtigen Teststufen (Unit/Integration/System/Abnahme), Testarten (funktional, nicht-funktional, änderungsbezogen) und Testentwurfsverfahren (Äquivalenzklassen, Grenzwerte, Entscheidungstabellen, explorativ) für die jeweilige Situation und SDLC-/CI-Phase, inkl. Testpyramide, CI/CD-Gates, Shift-Left und Best Practices. Nutze diesen Skill IMMER, wenn Tests geschrieben, geplant, priorisiert oder bewertet werden sollen — bei "schreibe Tests", "Teststrategie", "Testplan", "Testkonzept", "was/wie soll ich testen", "welche Tests fehlen", "Testabdeckung verbessern", "QA aufsetzen", Fragen zu Regression/Smoke/Sanity/Last/Stress/Security-Tests oder beim Einrichten einer Test-Pipeline — auch wenn "Test" nur beiläufig fällt. Abgrenzung — für die TDD-Schleife selbst superpowers:test-driven-development, für Bug-Diagnose bugfix-protocol, für systematische Bug-Suche bugsweep nutzen.

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 OpenAI Codex CLI as a peer collaboration partner — same standing as Claude, not a one-shot tool. Bring Codex in EARLY (ideation, framing decisions, stuck moments), not only for late peer-review. Hand it strategic context (target, research, draft, reasoning), iterate conversationally over ~3-8 turns, converge before surfacing to the human. Invoke when the user says "check / iterate / ideate with Codex" or "ask Codex" — and proactively when stuck between two reasonable framings, pressure-testing a load-bearing claim or structure, or about to ask the human to pick between options two agents could resolve.

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。