Complete architecture reference for the A3 insurance platform — file locations, data flow, conventions, microservice map, and fullstack patterns
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。
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新
無料GitHub で公開
gate
Verification before completion claims. Use when about to say "done", "fixed", or "complete". Runs checklist by workflow type with evidence requirements.
含まれるファイル（2）
- SKILL.md4.4 KB
- metadata.json688 B
SKILL.md（原文）
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
gate
Verify before claiming completion.
Trigger
Before claiming: "done", "fixed", "complete", "working", "ready"
Pre-Work Gate (Before Starting)
Run before substantial work begins. Blocks execution if missing.
□ Verification method locked (not "assumption")
→ What type: execution output / observation / measurement?
→ What evidence will you show?
□ At least 2 "must NOT" criteria exist
→ What should this NOT do?
→ What scope should NOT expand?
□ Fit score determined workflow shape
→ <25: BLOCKED - clarify first
→ 25-29: Colleague-shaped (iterate each step)
→ 30-39: Tool-with-review (checkpoint major steps)
→ 40+: Tool-shaped (milestones only)
If any missing: STOP. Complete before proceeding.
Post-Work Gate (Before Claiming Done)
Workflow A: Build
□ Feature executes without errors (show output)
□ Edge cases tested (empty, null, boundary)
□ Rollback tested if Type 2B/1
□ Dependencies verified
Workflow B: Debug
□ Root cause identified with evidence
□ Fix tested and resolves symptom
□ Prevention added (test/automation/guard)
□ Related bugs checked (same class)
Workflow C: Refactor
□ Existing tests pass unchanged
□ Behavior identical (output comparison)
□ Deletion complete (no orphans)
□ No new abstraction without justification
Verification Types
| Type | Description | Sufficient for SHIP? |
|---|---|---|
execution output | Ran command, showed result | ✓ Yes |
observation | Screenshot, debugger session | ✓ Yes |
measurement | Metrics, benchmark data | ✓ Yes |
reasoned inference | Logic-based conclusion | ⚠️ Flag, don't block |
code review | Inspection only | ⚠️ Weak |
assumption | Not verified | ⚠️ Flag with warning |
Default: Require execution output, observation, or measurement before completion claims.
Boundary
Gates advise, never prevent. User owns their work.
- If user says "I'm confident" → flag concern, proceed
- If user says "skip gates" → proceed without verification demands
- Never invalidate user's assessment of their own work
Gate exists to surface risk, not to block legitimate intuition.
Verification Plan
Before claiming completion, define how you'll verify:
| Verification Type | Evidence Required | Time Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Execution output | Command output, test results | < 1 min |
| Observation | Screenshot, debugger inspection | 1-5 min |
| Measurement | Metrics, benchmarks, profiling | 5-15 min |
| Code review | Manual inspection only | Variable |
| Assumption | No verification | 0 (blocks SHIP) |
Verification Requirements by Stakes
| Stakes | Minimum Verification |
|---|---|
| High | Execution output + Observation |
| Medium | Execution output |
| Low | Code review acceptable |
Anti-Footgun Rules
- Never claim "done" with only assumptions
- "It compiles" is not verification
- "Tests pass" requires showing test output
- If verification would take > 15 min, that's a smell (task too big)
Anti-Patterns
| Claim | Problem | Required |
|---|---|---|
| "Should work" | Speculation | Actual output |
| "Looks good" | No verification | Test results |
| "Fixed the issue" | No proof | Before/after |
| "I think this resolves it" | No confidence % | X-Y% + basis |
Incomplete Work
When blocked, state:
- What's done (with evidence)
- What's blocking (specific)
- What's remaining
Type 2A Exception
Trivial changes (< 1 min rollback): completion allowed without full gate. Document undo command.
Common Rationalizations (All Wrong)
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "The tests passed" | Tests ≠ verification. Did you run the ACTUAL command? |
| "It should work" | "Should" = assumption. Show evidence. |
| "I already checked" | When? Show the output. |
| "The user is waiting" | Rushed verification = rework later. |
| "It's a simple change" | Simple changes break production too. |
| "I'm pretty sure it works" | Pretty sure ≠ evidence. Run it. |
レビュー
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
同じリポジトリのスキル
概要と使いどころ
Drafts U.S. commercial real estate access and indemnity (right-of-entry) agreements for pre-closing due diligence. Covers license grants, non-invasive vs invasive testing gates, insurance/endorsement requirements, indemnity with discovery carve-outs, restoration and lien remedies, confidentiality, and anti-indemnity guardrails. Trigger: access agreement, right of entry, due diligence access, Phase I/II, invasive testing, pre-PSA site inspection.
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。
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新
当用户需要对意外险投保问卷进行专业、结构化的核保审查，提取职业类别、工作环境、作业内容、危险活动参与情况、交通出行习惯、特殊工作暴露及其他可能影响意外险承保判断的高风险信息，并生成适合意外险核保、补问流转和风险分层处理的结构化分析结果时使用本 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。
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新
Inspect, schema, and fill true AcroForm PDFs using sciClaw's pdf_form_inspect, pdf_form_schema, and pdf_form_fill tools. Use when: (1) checking whether a PDF is a real fillable AcroForm, (2) listing form field names, types, and choices, (3) filling a supported form from structured values, (4) preparing reviewable insurance, legal, administrative, or clinical form drafts, (5) reporting skipped fields or unused input keys after a fill. Do not use for scanned PDFs, OCR tasks, or XFA-only forms.
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。
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新
Guide actuarial analysis for insurance pricing. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with actuarial-analysis related tasks.
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。
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新
Analyzes actuarial modeling systems for loss reserving accuracy, premium pricing methodology, mortality/morbidity tables, stochastic modeling, and capital adequacy per SOA and Solvency II standards. USE THIS SKILL WHEN: - You need to review or audit actuarial models (reserving, pricing, capital) - Someone asks about loss triangle analysis or reserve adequacy - You are evaluating IBNR calculations, chain ladder methods, or Bornhuetter-Ferguson - A project involves insurance pricing, GLM rating models, or ratemaking - You need to assess Solvency II SCR calculations or RBC compliance - Someone mentions actuarial opinions, ASOP compliance, or SOA standards - You are reviewing stochastic models, ESG configurations, or DFA frameworks - A codebase uses actuarial libraries (chainladder, lifetables, ChainLadder R package) TRIGGER PHRASES: "actuarial", "loss reserving", "IBNR", "chain ladder", "premium pricing", "mortality table", "Solvency II", "capital adequacy", "ratemaking", "GLM pricing", "risk-based capital", "reserve analysis", "actuarial opinion"
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。
FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新