「boundaries」の検索結果

Technology-agnostic guidance for modular systems: bounded contexts, clear boundaries, composability, state isolation, explicit contracts, failure containment, scaffolding workflows, split/merge criteria, sub-units inside a context, and compliance review signals. Use when designing or reviewing module structure, service boundaries, package layout, cross-cutting dependencies, "how should we split this?", modularity assessments, coupling between domains, greenfield context design, or architecture discussions without assuming a specific framework, language, or repository layout. Do NOT use for executing the full Patterns 1–5 repo decomposition pipeline or per-pattern inventories (use modular-decomposition), phased extraction roadmaps as the main deliverable (use decomposition-planning-roadmap), or end-to-end legacy migration strategy (use legacy-migration-planner).

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。

Design a production Alchemy architecture with capability-specific adapters, explicit trust boundaries, partial-state semantics, and reversible operations. Use when reviewing or creating an Alchemy-backed system. Trigger with "Alchemy architecture", "design an Alchemy dApp backend", or "review Alchemy boundaries".

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。

Organize business and technology teams for fast flow using Skelton & Pais's "Team Topologies". Use when the user mentions "team topologies", "Conway's law", "platform team", "stream-aligned team", "team boundaries", "cognitive load", "how should we split teams", "who owns this service", "team dependencies", or "reorg". Also trigger when reorganizing engineering teams, aligning team and service boundaries, splitting a monolith and deciding ownership, reducing cross-team handoffs, or designing an internal platform. Covers the four team types, three interaction modes, the inverse Conway maneuver, and fracture planes. For bounded contexts, see domain-driven-design. For dependency direction in code, see clean-architecture.

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。

Structure software around the Dependency Rule: source code dependencies point inward from frameworks to use cases to entities. Use when the user mentions "architecture layers", "dependency rule", "ports and adapters (hexagonal)", "onion architecture", "screaming architecture", "where should business logic go", "decouple from the database", "swap the framework without a rewrite", or "keep business rules independent". Also trigger when deciding which layer code belongs in, isolating core logic from infrastructure, defining module boundaries, or debating whether the framework should call your code or the reverse. Covers component principles, boundaries, and SOLID. For code-level quality, see clean-code. For domain modeling, see domain-driven-design.

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。

Guided journey from an app idea to a deliberate architecture: boundaries, domain model, data decisions, and resilience, making only the expensive-to-reverse decisions and deferring the rest. Orchestrates eight skills phase by phase - clean-architecture, domain-driven-design, system-design, ddia-systems, software-design-philosophy, release-it, pragmatic-programmer, 37signals-way - asking the user questions at every decision point and recording results in the project docs/ folder (ARCHITECTURE.md, DESIGN-CODE-ARCHITECTURE-PLAN.md) so the journey resumes across sessions. Use when the user wants to design a new app's architecture, choose boundaries and a domain model, decide monolith versus microservices, or says 'how should I structure this app'. If a codebase already exists, use remove-technical-debt (aged), improve-code-quality (fresh prototype), or architecture-optimization (slow but working); if unvalidated, run create-business or create-app first. For one framework in isolation, invoke that skill directly.

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 and manage farm data through Leaf Agriculture: fields, boundaries, machine operation files, and as-applied irrigation. Trigger phrases: leaf agriculture, farm data, field boundaries, as-applied irrigation, john deere data, operation files.

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 Hi-C contact maps between conditions across the right scale -- differential bin-pair contacts (multiHiCcompare, diffHic), differential A/B compartments (dcHiC), differential TAD boundaries (delta insulation), and differential loops (diffloop, DiffHiChIP) -- with distance-stratified between-sample normalization, replicate-aware NB-GLM FDR, HiCRep SCC reproducibility gating, and CNV correction for cancer/aneuploid samples. Use when comparing Hi-C between treatment and control, finding differential contacts/compartments/boundaries/loops, normalizing two maps of unequal depth, choosing a replicate-aware test, gating replicates with SCC, or correcting copy-number artifacts before a tumor-vs-normal comparison.

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。

Writes and migrates Swift Testing framework tests with @Test, @Suite, #expect, #require, confirmation, traits, withKnownIssue, Attachment.record, processExitsWith exit tests and capture lists, Test.cancel, Issue.record warnings/manual failures, XCTest-to-Swift Testing migration, Xcode 27 interoperability modes, XCUITest UI-test boundaries, performance/snapshot boundaries, mocking, async patterns, and test organization. Use when writing tests, converting XCTest assertions such as XCTUnwrap or XCTFail, reviewing advanced Swift Testing API availability, or deciding when to keep XCTest/XCUITest.

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。

Local user-profile maintenance skill for Codex, Claude Code, OpenClaw, OpenCode, and other agent harnesses. Use only when the user explicitly invokes $user-profile-keeper to create, initialize, update, query, correct, delete, export, or audit a local persistent user profile. It can extract durable collaboration preferences, requirement-expression habits, capability boundaries, recurring omissions, risk preferences, privacy boundaries, and typical events from the current session into auditable, confirmable, retractable local profile data. Do not auto-invoke, upload profile data, or replace task-clarifier's normal clarification flow.

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。

Design NestJS module boundaries and provider ownership. Use only when structuring feature/core/shared modules, controller-service boundaries, or provider lifetime; defer JWT/security, caching, and unrelated request-pipeline recipes.

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。

Structure Go code with package-first boundaries, `cmd/` and `internal/`, and explicit dependency wiring. Use when shaping project layout, package ownership, or service boundaries in Go; defer Redis/cache-specific implementation recipes to database 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。

Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls…

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。

Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.

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。

Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.

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。

Codebase reconnaissance agent for Bug Hunter. Maps architecture, identifies trust boundaries, classifies files by risk priority, and detects service boundaries. Does NOT find bugs — finds where bugs hide.

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 ManagedCode.Communication when a .NET application needs explicit result objects, structured errors, and predictable service or API boundaries instead of exception-driven control flow. USE FOR: integrating ManagedCode.Communication into services or APIs; replacing exception-driven result handling with explicit results; reviewing service boundaries that return. DO NOT USE FOR: unrelated stacks; generic tasks that do not need this specific guidance. INVOKES: inspect the repository context, edit targeted files, and run relevant build, test, lint, or validation commands when changes are made.

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。

Applies modular monolith with enforced internal boundaries. Use when teams want service-level autonomy without distributed system overhead.

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。

Guides stable API and interface design. Use when designing APIs, module boundaries, or any public interface. Use when creating REST or GraphQL endpoints, defining type contracts between modules, or establishing boundaries between frontend and backend.

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。

Run a comprehensive code review on local source files. Use this skill when the user asks to review, audit, inspect, evaluate, or check code, even if they never use the word "review." Does not post comments to GitHub pull requests — use post-code-review-to-pr for that. Does not analyze architectural structure or module boundaries — use architectural-analysis for that. Does not explain code or a PR to build understanding before reviewing — use code-overview for a written overview, or code-walkthrough to be paced through it one step at a time. Does not map bounded contexts or domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis for that. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.

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。

Performs deep architectural analysis of a specified module, directory, or feature area by examining structural coupling, data flow, concurrency patterns, risk, and SOLID alignment. Use when the user wants to assess, evaluate, or review the architecture, design quality, dependency structure, coupling, cohesion, or technical debt of an existing part of the codebase. Not for investigating specific bugs, runtime errors, or failures — use investigate. Not for test planning — use automated-test-planning. Not for file-level code review — use code-review. Not for researching open-ended options, prior art, or how something works — use research. Not for designing a new interface or contract — use design-an-api. Not for planning the change its findings imply — use plan-a-change. Not for discovering bounded contexts, ubiquitous language, or where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Not for writing documentation or architectural decision records.

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。

Analyzes an existing codebase using strategic Domain-Driven Design to discover bounded contexts, surface ubiquitous language and semantic collisions, find places where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries, and produce an evidence-backed domain and context map. Use when the goal is DDD-specific: bounded context discovery, ubiquitous language analysis, domain model discovery, or mapping contested ownership and responsibility. The entire repository is a valid scope; no module or directory must be named first. Does not assess architectural coupling, cohesion, or technical debt — use architectural-analysis. Does not design service communication, integration patterns, or deployment topology — use architectural-analysis or plan-a-feature. Does not refactor code, diagnose bugs, or review code quality — use refactor, investigate, or 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。

GitHub 解封 — 账号封禁/限制/恢复的领域操作系统。覆盖：(a) GitHub 官方政策体系 (TOS / 可接受使用政策 / Trust & Safety 执行模式 / 公开申诉路径 / 受制裁地区解读)；(b) 封号原因诊断学 (spam / abuse / 制裁误标 / 2FA 丢失 / ToS 违规 / 账号劫持误判 / ban evasion 等子类型 + 症状→原因映射 + 自我分诊压测)；(c) 申诉实操 craft (写一封能让 T&S 快速判误伤的英文申诉信 + 升级阶梯 + 法务介入边界 + Don'ts)；(d) 制裁与合规硬边界 (OFAC SDN 名单 / 哪些国家或地区真不可达 / VPN 误判路径 / 中国大陆不是美国制裁地区的反复重申)；(e) 中国大陆开发者特别处境 (sanctioned region 误标 + SMS 验证不支持 +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab 备用迁移 + 私有自托管 Gitea/Forgejo)；(f) 真实案例库 (~30+ 公开案例分类拆解：误伤 / 真违规 / 制裁误标三类各自赔率与申诉成功路径)。伦理锚绝不软化：不教 ban evasion / 不教撒谎式申诉 / 真违规承认改进 / 丢 2FA 无恢复因子则诚实告知 / 中国制裁误标靠申诉不靠换 VPN / 申诉 6 个月窗口必算清 / 约 3% (业内估) 真违规恢复 vs 约 79% (业内估) 误伤申诉成功率分层标。 (GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: false-positive / genuine violation / sanctions mis-flag, each with win-rate and appeal success path). Ethical anchors absolutely not softened: do NOT teach ban evasion (creating new accounts turns a temp ban into a permanent one — the single biggest mistake); do NOT teach social engineering or lying in appeals (misuse + actually confirms violation); genuine violations: admit + improve beats denial; lost 2FA + no recovery factor → do not pretend recovery is possible; China sanctioned-region mis-flag → fix via appeal, not repeated VPN switching; appeal form 6-month window must be counted carefully; historical 约 3% (业内估) genuine-violation recovery vs 约 79% (业内估) false-positive appeal success rate stratification must be honestly labeled. Anti-samples (explicitly describe harm, never endorse): developer permabanned for ban evasion / open-source team org-banned for personal attacks in public issues / cases where repeated VPN switching escalated risk-control severity.) Master OS — automated mastery of GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: fa

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。

Set use client and Server Function boundaries.

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。

Production-grade TypeScript reference for React & Next.js frontend development. Covers type narrowing, component Props, generic hooks, discriminated unions, as const, satisfies, Zod validation, TanStack Query, server/client boundaries, forms, state management, performance, accessibility, debugging, and code review. Use when the user works with TypeScript in React or Next.js: type errors, Props design, generics, API typing, SSR/CSR boundaries, hydration issues, form validation, state management, performance, or code review. Also use for "how should I type this?", "why does this type error happen?", or any architectural decision involving TypeScript in a frontend context.

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。