「gap-analysis」の検索結果

Identify content gaps between your site and competitors. Use when the user says "content gaps", "what am I missing", "competitor content", "content opportunities", "topics I should cover", "content gap analysis", or asks about finding topics and keywords their site doesn't cover but competitors do.

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。

Audit a test file or suite; produce a severity-ranked diagnostic report. ALWAYS USE for tests that verify nothing, missing/tautological assertions, swallowed/broad exceptions, flaky/order-dependent tests, duplication, or magic values. Polyglot. DO NOT USE for direct edits: writing-mstest-tests owns supplied MSTest assertions/attributes/lifecycle; code-testing owns new tests. Exclude running tests, migration, assertion metrics (assertion-quality), raw .NET coverage collection (run-tests), non-.NET coverage collection/analysis (native tooling), project-wide .NET coverage/CRAP (coverage-analysis), named-target .NET CRAP (crap-score), behavioral/pseudo-mutation gaps (test-gap-analysis), test-mix/ happy-vs-error classification and trait distributions (test-tagging), or the testsmells.org catalog (test-smell-detection).

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。

Pseudo-mutation analysis ONLY: answer whether tests would catch a bug if production code changed, which meaningful changes would still pass, or which caller-visible mutations existing assertions would miss; verify candidates when requested, then optionally close verified gaps. Includes explicit read-only per-test composition for grading. Activate for behavioral blind spots tied to production behavior. Polyglot. DO NOT USE FOR: suite taxonomy, metadata, or distribution reports (test-tagging); .NET line-vs-branch or Cobertura interpretation, arithmetic, plateaus, project-wide coverage gaps, or coverage-backed test/CRAP priorities (coverage-analysis; use native coverage tooling outside .NET); named-target CRAP (crap-score); new suites (code-testing); assertion/smell audits; or mutation tools.

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。

Classifies existing tests by standard traits and reports their distribution. USE FOR: tagging all tests with category attributes, categorizing/tagging/ labeling each test, compare happy vs error paths, audit the test mix, describe coverage shape by test type, or tag then verify the project builds. Read bodies when names mislead. Apply canonical attributes; otherwise report only. DO NOT USE FOR: requests owned by test-anti-patterns, coverage-analysis, crap-score, test-gap-analysis, code-testing, or migration 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。

Calculates CRAP (Change Risk Anti-Patterns) for a named .NET method, class, or file. USE FOR: explicit CRAP calculation or coverage-and-complexity risk within that named target, including which tests to prioritize. DO NOT USE FOR: project-wide coverage/CRAP, plateaus, or project-wide blockers/priorities (coverage-analysis); behavioral/pseudo-mutation gaps (test-gap-analysis); writing tests; test runs without CRAP 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。

Provides file paths to language-specific reference files for the test ANALYSIS skills (assertion-quality, test-anti-patterns, test-gap-analysis, test-smell-detection, test-tagging). Read this catalog to discover available extension files (e.g., dotnet.md for .NET/MSTest/xUnit/NUnit/TUnit, python.md for pytest/unittest, typescript.md for Jest/Vitest/Mocha, java.md for JUnit/TestNG, etc.). Do not invoke this reference-only skill — its bundled files are read by the quality agent and analysis skills needing framework-specific lookup tables (test markers, assertion APIs, skip annotations, sleep patterns, mystery guest indicators, integration markers, setup/teardown, tag-support capability).

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。

Activation requires either supplied .NET coverage reports/percentages/line, branch, or condition metrics, or an explicit request to collect .NET coverage for analysis. USE FOR: interpreting that evidence, including Cobertura data, partial conditions, plateaus, target arithmetic, project-wide coverage-backed CRAP, and coverage-backed refactoring safety. Analyze supplied reports directly without rerunning tests or installing tools. DO NOT USE FOR: requests with neither coverage evidence nor explicit coverage-collection intent, including hypothetical change-survival questions (use test-gap-analysis); CRAP or refactoring safety for one named target (use crap-score); or requests owned by test-tagging, find-untested-sources, test-anti-patterns, run-tests, or code-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。

Analyze assertion quality, depth, variety, and false confidence in existing tests. ALWAYS USE when asked about weak, shallow, trivial, always-true, self-referential, assertion-free, presence/truthiness-only, or insufficiently diverse assertions, including MSTest, Jest, pytest, and Go. DO NOT USE for direct fixes: writing-mstest-tests owns supplied MSTest assertions; code-testing owns new cases. Use test-gap-analysis when asked whether tests would catch a production change, and test-anti-patterns for general severity-ranked audits.

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 page ranks for a keyword but isn't in the top 3 and you want to know exactly what's missing. The agent compares the page to the top-ranking competitors and produces a specific list of entities, subtopics, and relationships to add.

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。

Audits Records of Processing Activities against supervisory authority templates from CNIL, ICO, and BfDI. Provides completeness scoring, gap identification, and remediation tracking. Activate for RoPA audit, completeness check, supervisory authority readiness, CNIL template, ICO template, BfDI template, gap 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。

Guides building a multi-jurisdiction privacy compliance matrix for organisations operating across multiple countries. Covers common requirements identification, jurisdiction-specific deltas, gap analysis, and harmonised control frameworks. Keywords: multi-jurisdiction, compliance matrix, harmonised controls, gap analysis, jurisdiction mapping.

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 systematic mapping of international personal data flows across an organisation. Covers system-by-system inventory methodology, third-party identification, transfer mechanism assignment, gap analysis, and data flow visualisation. Keywords: data flow mapping, international transfers, data inventory, transfer register, cross-border data flows.

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。

Splits a body of context into a sequence of vertical-slice build phases where each phase is independently demonstrable to a real user and each builds on the previous. Use when the user wants to plan, sequence, phase, slice, break down, or order the build of a feature, capability, system, or initiative, and produces a plain-language phased build outline. Does not produce implementation detail — use plan-implementation. Does not specify behavior that has not been decided — use plan-a-feature. Does not perform gap analysis between two artifacts — use gap-analysis. Does not break a plan into independently-grabbable work items — use plan-work-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。

Researches an open-ended question — options, possible solutions, prior art, trade-offs, or how something works — and produces a durable, evidence-backed, adversarially-validated report that recommends an option without committing the team to any artifact. Use when you want to research approaches, weigh options, survey prior art or the state of the art, or understand how something works before committing to a direction. Does not diagnose a bug, failure, or root cause — use investigate. Does not specify a feature — use plan-a-feature. Does not create or update a coding standard — use coding-standard. Does not compare two concrete artifacts for gaps — use gap-analysis. Does not assess an existing module's architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback.

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 a gap analysis between two artifacts (a current state and a desired state) and produces a plain-language, stakeholder-readable report indexed by stable gap IDs. Use when the user wants to compare, evaluate, audit, or reconcile one artifact against another. Does not investigate runtime bugs — use investigate. Does not assess module-level architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not research open-ended options with no second artifact to compare against — use research.

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 prioritize ethical backlink and digital-PR opportunities using SandBase DataForSEO backlink data. Use when asked to analyze backlink profiles, find referring-domain gaps, compare link competitors, or prepare a link-outreach target 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。

Assesses production readiness or audits a codebase against its specs. Supports quick static mode, deep 17-dimension audit, or single-dimension focus. Use before a production launch, after a major refactor, when inheriting a codebase, or when someone asks how done the project is.

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。

Takes a curriculum framework and a statutory or accreditation requirement list; produces a coverage table, gap summary, and CSV showing which framework content covers each requirement and where gaps exist.

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。

Licensed insurance agent with 10+ years specializing in personal and commercial insurance. Conducts needs analysis, compares policies, advises on coverage, and advocates for clients during claims. Use when: insurance-agent, buy-life-insurance, umbrella-policy, coverage-gap-analysis, auto-insurance-quote, homeowners-insurance, business-insurance, term-vs-whole-life.

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。

当用户需要分析家庭或个人保障缺口时使用此 skill。适用于保障现状盘点、需求测算、缺口识别、配置建议等场景。

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。

当用户需要分析家庭或个人保障缺口时使用此 skill。适用于保障现状盘点、需求测算、缺口识别、配置建议等场景。

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。

Detect missing glyphs, icons, and HD variants by comparing registries against glyph mapping files, icon directories, and manifests. Reports gaps for skills, agents, and teams across all palettes.

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。

Audit an existing Quarkus + LangChain4j project against this stack's agentic conventions — a read-only conformance or gap-analysis review. Use when the user asks to audit, review, check, assess, or validate a Quarkus project against the LangChain4j agentic conventions, or wants to know whether an existing project conforms to (or is ready to adopt) this stack. User-invoked only.

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 you need to answer "which attacker techniques do our controls actually stop, and how well?", "what controls should I have for this threat?", or "what telemetry should I collect to detect it?" — joining a customer's or your own security control baseline to ATT&CK techniques using a public, versioned evidence base of 9,545 control-to-technique mappings from six sources. Produces four ranked lists (addressed strongly, addressed weakly, real gaps, and techniques no control anywhere addresses). Use for control gap analysis, security programme prioritisation, board reporting on coverage, or the Resistance Strength side of a FAIR risk assessment. Invoke after /threat-actor-profiling or /lookup-liberty91 has produced a technique 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。