「questioning」の検索結果

Golang data structures — slices (internals, capacity growth, preallocation, slices package), maps (internals, hash buckets, maps package), arrays, container/list/heap/ring, strings.Builder vs bytes.Buffer, generic collections, pointers (unsafe.Pointer, weak.Pointer), and copy semantics. Use when choosing or optimizing Go data structures, implementing generic containers, using container/ packages, unsafe or weak pointers, or questioning slice/map internals. Not for applying optimization patterns once profiling has identified a bottleneck (→ See `samber/cc-skills-golang@golang-performance` 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。

Interactive PM interview with expertise-adaptive questioning for requirements elicitation

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。

Clarify vague requirements through exploratory questioning and option generation before committing to research or implementation.

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 creating or developing, before writing code or implementation plans - refines rough ideas into fully-formed designs through collaborative questioning, alternative exploration, and incremental validation. Don't use during clear 'mechanical' 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。

Break large features into independently verifiable, human-reviewable slices under a feature directory in specs/. Use for risky or multi-step feature work that needs upfront questioning, API seams, browser-playable checkpoints, HTML visualizations, screenshot gates, staged implementation plans, recursive fog-of-war reslicing, or proactive research into reference implementations/best practices before slicing. Pairs with your project's verification harness and screenshot gates (the browser checkpoints), [refactor-clean](../refactor-clean/SKILL.md) (review the materialized spec so the plan describes one-owner architecture, not the feature bolted on), [screenshot-critique](../../visual/screenshot-critique/SKILL.md) and [compare-screenshots](../../visual/compare-screenshots/SKILL.md) (the visual gates), and a code-review pass (audit each slice before it lands).

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。

Deep business diagnosis for when things aren't working. Uses Socratic questioning, first-principles reasoning, and constraint analysis to find WHY a business is stuck — not just prescribe solutions. Use when the user says 'my business isn't working', 'I'm stuck', 'what's wrong', 'diagnose my business', 'why am I not growing', 'help me figure out the problem', or describes a specific business challenge.

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。

Check an educational practice or task for cultural bias, WEIRD assumptions, and cross-cultural validity. Use when adapting resources for diverse contexts or questioning universal claims.

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。

Generate elaborative interrogation prompts that deepen encoding through targeted why and how questions. Use when students memorise without understanding or need deeper processing of content.

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 checking-for-understanding protocol with specific techniques for each lesson stage. Use when planning systematic comprehension checks during explicit or direct instruction.

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。

Mom Test questioning toolkit, JTBD analysis, interview conduct, assumption testing framework, and hypothesis 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。

Challenge mode reviews - rigorous questioning before approving changes. Use when you want thorough scrutiny of Ecto…

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。

Challenge mode reviews - rigorous questioning before approving changes. Use when you want thorough scrutiny of Ecto changes, LiveView events, OTP designs, or PR readiness.

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。

Challenge mode reviews - rigorous questioning before approving changes. Use when you want thorough scrutiny of Ecto changes, LiveView events, OTP designs, or PR readiness.

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 starting GSD in a repo that has no .planning/ yet, or the user wants a new project set up. Questioning, optional research, requirements, and roadmap produce .planning/PROJECT.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, ROADMAP.md, and STATE.md.

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 phase has unresolved decisions before planning and no CONTEXT.md exists. Asks adaptive questions on the phase's gray areas and writes {phase_num}-CONTEXT.md with locked decisions; --auto, --chain, --power change the questioning.

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 the current milestone has shipped and it is time to scope the next one, or when the user asks to start a new milestone. Updates PROJECT.md, then runs questioning, research, requirements, and roadmap.

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。

This skill should be used when drafting GitHub issues for the Positron repository. It provides workflows for searching duplicates, selecting appropriate labels, gathering complete context through questioning, and writing terse, fluff-free issues that precisely describe what is needed or wrong. The skill prepares issues for manual submission by the user. Use this skill when the user asks to draft or prepare an issue for Positron.

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 project ideation via Socratic questioning to produce a validated brief. Use before specification when requirements are unclear.

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。

Socratic method teaching skill that guides users to discover answers themselves through questioning, never giving direct answers. TRIGGER when: user's message contains 'socratic', 'Socrates', or '소크라테스'. Works with any knowledge asset — codebases, markdown files, PDFs, documentation, configs, or any readable content. Respond in the user's language.

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。

Turn vague or partially formed AI, computer-science, data-driven, and engineering-method research directions into evidence-grounded, falsifiable, paper-ready Research Idea Briefs through heuristic questioning, staged confirmation, literature positioning, novelty attack, and method-figure planning. Use when the user needs to clarify a research idea, formalize inputs/outputs/objectives/constraints, frame background and motivation, select 3-5 anchor papers, identify a defensible gap, derive 2-3 contributions, stress-test novelty, or design an input-to-output method framework and core-paper figure. Also trigger on requests such as 明确科研 idea、启发式梳理 idea、互动追问科研问题、梳理论文创新点、定义研究任务、找对标论文、把研究方向变成论文方案、画方法框架图. Do not use as the primary workflow for running experiments, exhaustive systematic reviews, drafting full manuscript sections, or polishing finished prose.

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。

Surface risks through guided questioning, helping users consider pivots, constraints, and prioritization during PRD v0.5 Red Team Review. Triggers on requests to identify risks, stress-test the idea, perform red team review, or when user asks "what could go wrong?", "identify risks", "red team", "risk assessment", "challenge assumptions", "stress test the idea". Consumes all prior IDs (CFD-, BR-, FEA-, PER-, UJ-, SCR-) as interview context. Outputs RISK- entries with owner decisions and mitigations. Feeds v0.5 Technical Stack Selection.

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 the dialectical reasoning and intellectual humility of Socrates (ancient Greek philosopher, 470-399 BCE). Use this skill whenever the user is grappling with fundamental definitions, moral dilemmas, educational approaches, self-reflection, or making high-stakes ethical decisions. Trigger this skill when encountering topics like virtue, justice, the pursuit of truth, questioning assumptions, coaching, or when the user seems overly confident in unexamined beliefs. It helps dismantle false assumptions through probing questions and redirects focus toward the "care of the soul" and objective truth over external validation or material success.

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 the reasoning of Mary Wollstonecraft (18th-century English philosopher and author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman) to evaluate situations involving power dynamics, education, independence, gender roles, and systemic inequality. Use this skill whenever Claude encounters career trade-offs involving financial dependence, analyzing structural oppression, questioning societal norms, or balancing reason against emotion. It helps dismantle arbitrary hierarchies, prioritize rational capability over superficial elegance, and frame personal struggles as political realities.

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。