3,418 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
[omh] Previously rejected options to revisit: recall scoped reviewed rejected decisions without elevating them to approved memory. Use when the user says: decision-recall, rejected decision recall, rejected decisions, why was this rejected, previously rejected alternative, 거절된 결정, 기각된 대안.
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。
Write and maintain Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following best practices for technical decision documentation. Use when documenting significant technical decisions, reviewing past architectural choices, or establishing decision processes.
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。
Create an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) for any technical decision. Use when asked to document a technical decision, write an ADR, record an architecture choice, or capture why a technology or approach was selected. Produces a structured ADR with context, decision, consequences, and tradeoffs.
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。
Two-layer memory for executive decisions, separating raw deliberation from approved decisions to prevent hallucinated consensus. Use when logging decisions, reviewing past decisions, or checking overdue action items.
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 assessment of third-country adequacy decisions under GDPR Article 45 for international data transfers. Covers the current EC adequacy decisions list, adequacy assessment criteria, partial adequacy handling, and monitoring of adequacy decision reviews. Keywords: adequacy decision, Article 45, third country, adequate protection, EC adequacy list.
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。
Implements GDPR Art. 22 automated decision-making and AI Act Art. 14 human oversight requirements for AI systems. Covers identification of solely automated decisions, meaningful human intervention design, logic explanation mechanisms, and contestation procedures. Keywords: Art. 22, automated decision, human oversight, AI Act, profiling, contestation.
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。
Manage per-feature living documents that capture decisions, constraints, and reasoning across AI sessions during active development. Scoped to feature-level work — design, implementation, bugfix, refactor — not for codebase-wide assessments or product-wide specifications (those define their own document lifecycles). Handles creating new context documents, loading existing ones, and enriching them with new decisions. Use when starting a new feature, resuming work, making technical decisions, resolving questions, or when context needs to persist across sessions. Use this skill whenever the user mentions 'load context', 'update context', 'context doc', 'decisions', 'continue where we left off', 'what did we decide', or 'capture this decision'.
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 architecture decision records (ADRs) and keeps the rest of a project's documentation true after a change: README, reference comments on public interfaces and the changelog. Use when a user says "write an ADR", "record this decision", "document why we chose X", "set up a decision log", "supersede the old decision", "update the README", "add a changelog entry" or "document this API". Produces records in the Nygard or MADR format, a Keep a Changelog entry, and a script that checks the log for gaps and broken supersession links.
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。
Architecture Decision Records workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Comprehensive patterns for creating, maintaining, and managing Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) that capture the context and rationale behind significant technical decisions and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
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 an architecture decision record (ADR) for a decision the team has already reached: the context, the options weighed, the choice and its consequences. Use when the user says "record this decision", "write an ADR", "we decided X, capture it", or asks to document a technical choice already made. Not for making the decision itself or for tracking the work it leads to.
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。
Creates, supersedes and validates decision records (ADRs) against the convention a collection already follows, instead of imposing a published one. Use when the user wants to record a decision, write an ADR, supersede an existing decision, audit or lint a decisions folder, check that an ADR index is in sync, or asks "why did we decide X". Deduces the filename scheme, section set and status vocabulary from the records already there; ships a validator with an exit code, so the audit is a check and not an 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。
"Habitual Domain (HD) theory by Taiwanese scholar P.L. Yu (游伯龍, 1977) — integrates four domains (potential/actual/reachable/activated), eight general hypotheses, seven-layer decision structure, and nine HD-expansion tools to analyze decision blind spots, break cognitive inertia, and support cross-domain integration. Use for diagnosing why alternatives are invisible, decision paralysis, breaking cognitive frames, or explaining perception gaps between people. Triggers: 『思維框架』『打破盲點』『創新思考』『決策盲區』『跨域整合』『游伯龍』『習慣領域』『HD 理論』『七層決策』『四領域』『八大通性』『P.L. Yu』. Especially for NYCU EMBA HD course, 政大科管所, 中山企管系 decision-analysis/innovation/leadership courses. Taiwan-origin theory cited in J. Optimization Theory, Theory & Decision, Human Systems Management.".
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。
Record and track organizational decisions using the RAPID framework. Captures decision context, options analysis, RAPID roles, risk assessment, and communication plan. Use when making cross-functional decisions, documenting governance choices, or building an auditable decision trail.
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。
Build a weighted decision matrix to evaluate options. Use when the user says "decision matrix", "compare options", "weighted scoring", "which option should we choose", "evaluate alternatives", "Wiegers priority matrix", "force field analysis", "decision table", "trade-off analysis", "option comparison" - even if they don't explicitly say "decision matrix".
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 this skill when building, reviewing, or refreshing a RACI (Responsible / Accountable / Consulted / Informed) matrix for a Salesforce project so that every Salesforce-specific decision — data model change, automation tier choice, security model, integration boundary, deployment, license/edition — has exactly one accountable owner and a documented escalation path that downstream agents can route to. Trigger keywords: RACI matrix salesforce project, stakeholder authority salesforce, escalation path salesforce decisions, who approves data model change, salesforce decision rights, REFUSAL_NEEDS_HUMAN_REVIEW routing. NOT for the change advisory board operating model itself (use admin/change-management-and-deployment). NOT for end-user training rollout plans (use admin/change-management-and-training). NOT for the technical mechanics of permission set assignment authority (use admin/permission-set-architecture). NOT for pure stakeholder requirements elicitation (use admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf). More trigger keywords: who approves a sandbox refresh, who signs off a data load, release update activation owner, delegated admin authority vs RACI, multi-org decision rights, escalation time-box.
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。
Structured multi-criteria decision analysis for ranking options with weights, constraints, confidence, tradeoff reasoning, sensitivity analysis, and explainable recommendations. Use when the user asks for decision support, MCDA, weighted scoring, prioritization, vendor selection, route planning, hiring shortlist ranking, tool comparison, procurement decisions, or auditable agent decision logic.
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。
Apply recognition-primed decision making to agents operating under time pressure, uncertainty, and ambiguous cues. Use for situation assessment, RPD-style action selection, and decision-support design in operational settings. NOT for batch optimization, static planning with full information, or tasks where exhaustive search is cheap and harmless.
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。
Turns a vague "what should we do about X" into a scored decision - explicit actions, an explicit unknown, an explicit prior, and one utility scale - then picks by maximum expected utility and checks the result for framing effects. Use when facing a choice between options under uncertainty, when a decision has stalled in circular debate, when someone asks "should we do A or B", or before writing any decision record, strategy memo, or roadmap 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。
Turns past decisions into calibrated judgment - scoring old predictions against what happened, assigning credit for delayed results, and separating a bad decision from a good decision that lost. Use during a retrospective, postmortem, quarterly or monthly review, when reviewing decisions taken 30+ days ago, when attributing a result to a cause, or when someone claims to have called something.
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。
Write and maintain Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following best practices for technical decision documentation. Use when documenting significant technical decisions, reviewing past architectural choices, or establishing decision processes.
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。
Extrem kurzes, substantielles Ausgabe-FORMAT fuer EINE Entscheidung oder Entscheidungsgruppe, wenn die dahinterstehende Analyse bereits existiert (im Chat entstanden, aus `decide`, aus `decision-briefing`, aus einem Ticket oder Dokument): Kontext in 2-3 Zeilen, Pro/Contra je Option als Stichpunkte im paveman/caveman-reduzierten Stil, Talking Points, eine begruendete Empfehlung, und ein Pfad/Link zur Vollanalyse zum Komplett-Nachlesen. Nutze diesen Skill bei "gib mir das kurz mit Pro Contra und Empfehlung", "executive summary zur Entscheidung", "kurzkontext zu <Thema>", "fass die Entscheidung X in einer Kurzform zusammen", /decision-shot, oder wenn ein Ergebnis an jemanden weitergereicht werden soll, der nur die Essenz braucht, nicht die volle Herleitung. NICHT nutzen, um viele offene Entscheidungen zu SAMMELN und per Buchstabe abzufragen -- das macht decision-briefing; NICHT nutzen, um eine Entscheidung erst zu ANALYSIEREN -- das macht decide. decision-shot setzt eine fertige Analyse voraus und komprimiert nur deren Praesentation.
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。
Write and maintain Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following best practices for technical decision documentation. Use when documenting significant technical decisions, reviewing past architectural choices, or establishing decision processes.
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。
Creates Architecture Decision Records documenting key technical decisions with context, alternatives considered, tradeoffs, consequences, and decision owners. Use when documenting "architecture decisions", "technical choices", "design decisions", or "ADRs".
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 tree analysis for complex decision-making across all domains. Use when user needs to evaluate multiple options with uncertain outcomes, assess risk/reward scenarios, or structure choices systematically. Applicable to business, investment, personal decisions, operations, career choices, product strategy, and any situation requiring structured evaluation. Triggers include decision tree, should I, what if, evaluate options, compare alternatives, risk analysis.
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。