1,386 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Analyse student work against criteria to identify specific gaps between current performance and learning objectives. Use when reviewing submissions, planning feedback, or diagnosing learning needs.
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 milestone audit reported gaps and you want the fix phases created in one pass. Reads MILESTONE-AUDIT.md, groups gaps into phases, adds them to ROADMAP.md and offers to plan each one.
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。
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 assessment of current state versus GDPR requirements across all chapters with prioritised remediation matrix. Activate when starting compliance programmes or conducting periodic reassessment. Keywords: gap analysis, compliance assessment, remediation matrix, GDPR 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。
Conducts structured post-breach remediation using a lessons learned framework covering root cause remediation, control gap closure, policy updates, training modifications, monitoring enhancements, and regulatory follow-up. Provides a systematic approach to preventing breach recurrence and demonstrating accountability to supervisory authorities. Keywords: post-breach, remediation, lessons learned, root cause, control gap, policy update, training.
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。
Think and work like an expert Condensed Matter Physicist. Use when a task calls for Condensed Matter Physicist judgment. Reasons from Bloch bands, quasiparticles, and symmetry through ARPES/STM/neutron/transport workflows, VASP/QE/Wannier90/DMFT, and Materials Project/ICSD/MPDS while treating matrix-element artifacts, Mott vs. DFT gaps, pseudogap vs. SC gap, and Planckian bad-metal transport as first-class failure modes.
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 behavioral audit of a Lattice skill — proposes 3 review personas relevant to the skill, runs independent scenario analysis from each persona's perspective, then merges only the high-confidence, practical findings into a severity-ordered gap report with proposed fixes. Structural validation (conventions, cross-references) is skill-validate's job — this skill finds gaps that would realistically surface when someone actually uses the skill: missing scenario handling, ambiguous instructions, silent failure cases, and behavioral inconsistencies. Filters out theoretical edge cases, low-likelihood speculation, and findings owned by other skills. Use after writing or significantly changing any skill, or when the user says 'review this skill', 'deep review', 'does this skill work', 'find gaps in this skill', 'stress test this skill', 'review from different angles', or 'skill review'. Standalone — does not call other 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。
Closes a large backlog of findings (a gap analysis, an audit, or 10+ bugs) in prioritized waves. Loops through triage, dependency analysis, parallel fix streams, a test gate, and re-audit until the target is met. Use after a gap analysis, audit, or review produces 10+ findings, or to burn down a large bug or tech-debt backlog.
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。
B2B 大客户销售 (B2B 大客户销售 / 企业级复杂销售 (Enterprise B2B Sales / Complex Selling) — 面向企业客户的高价值、长周期、多干系人复杂销售的职业认知操作系统，从业者(AE/客户经理/SE 售前/销售负责人 VP Sales/CRO)、想入行者、以及服务这行(销售咨询/enablement/RevOps)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 三大方法论流派之争: **买方主导的诊断式提问 (consultative/discovery-led: SPIN 提问 → 痛点 → 方案, 「像医生先诊断再开方」) ⇄ 卖方主导的教学式挑战 (Challenger: Teach-Tailor-Take control, 用商业洞见 reframe 客户认知, 「像老师挑战客户的既有想法」) ⇄ 资格审查纪律 (MEDDIC/MEDDPICC: 先严格 qualify/disqualify, 「no deal 好过 bad deal」)**; 三派不是非此即彼, 资深人混用, 但底层世界观分歧真实(问 vs 教 vs 筛); 更深层张力 — 「过程/方法论纪律 (process rigor: 预测准确、deal inspection、qualify) ⇄ 关系/信任 (relationship: champion 培养、高管关系、人情)」, 「卖结果/业务价值 (business outcome/ROI、卖给经济决策人) ⇄ 卖产品/功能 (feature selling)」, 「多线程触达买方委员会 (multithreading buying committee) ⇄ 单一 champion 依赖」; (b) 方法论正典 (最标准化、最易蒸出高质量+CLI 化) — MEDDIC/MEDDPICC (Metrics 量化指标/Economic buyer 经济决策人/Decision Criteria 决策标准/Decision Process 决策流程/Identify Pain 痛点/Champion 内部拥护者 + Paper process 签约流程/Competition 竞争), SPIN (Situation/Problem/Implication/Need-payoff 提问序列), Challenger (商业洞见 commercial insight + reframe + 建设性张力 constructive tension + Mobilizer 调动者), Solution Selling (痛点链 pain chain/愿景创建/buying vision), Sandler (前置合约 up-front contract/痛苦漏斗 pain funnel/潜艇七步), Command of the Message (Force Management: 业务价值框架/before-after/decision criteria), Gap Selling (Keenan: 现状 current state → 期望 future state → 差距 the gap/问题中心), Miller Heiman Strategic Selling (蓝表 blue sheet/buying influences: 经济/用户/技术买家 + coach), Value Selling, BANT (老式资格框架, 多被 MEDDIC 取代); (c) 行业结构与角色 — SDR/BDR (开发/约见) → AE/客户经理 (成交) → SE/售前/Solutions Engineer (技术验证/POC/demo) → CSM (客户成功/续约扩张) → Sales Manager/VP Sales/CRO; RevOps (收入运营), Sales Enablement (赋能); land and expand (先落地再扩张)、量化指标 quota/OTE(目标总收入)/配额达成率/pipeline coverage(管道覆盖率 ~3x 业内经验法则)/win rate(赢率)/sales velocity(销售速度)/ramp time(爬坡期)/ACV·ARR·NRR(年合同额/年经常性收入/净收入留存); (d) 销售周期 (the deal/opportunity lifecycle) — prospecting 开发 → discovery 需求挖掘 → qualification 资格审查(MEDDIC) → demo/technical validation/POC 技术验证 → business case/value 业务价值与 ROI → proposal 提案 → negotiation 谈判(procurement 采购/法务/security review) → close 成交 → onboarding/expansion 交付与扩张; 干系人: champion 拥护者 vs coach 线人 vs economic buyer 经济决策人 vs blocker 阻碍者; mutual action plan/close plan(双向行动计划/成交计划); (e) 产出物与节奏 — discovery call(需求电话)、demo、business case、proposal/SOW、MAP(mutual action plan)、forecast(预测: commit/best case/pipeline 类别)、pipeline review/deal review/QBR(季度业务回顾)/account plan(客户计划); (f) 职业/招聘/薪酬 — quota/OTE/comp plan(底薪+提成)/accelerator(加速器)/SPIFF/clawback、ramp、President's Club(顶尖销售俱乐部)、SDR→AE→管理 晋升路径、rep turnover(销售流失率高); (g) 争议/批判 — Challenger 是否过誉(CEB 原始数据被质疑、insight selling 批评)、MEDDIC 沦为填表剧场(box-checking theater, 填字段不真 qualify)、活动指标 vs 质量(spray-and-pray 群发/冷电话存废之争)、AI SDR/自动化淹没收件箱(2024-2025 AI BDR 泡沫 + 邮件送达率崩溃 backlash)、SDR 军团模式是否将死(Winning by Design/signal-based GTM 取代)、配额虚高与销售 burnout、季末打折促单、销售方法论的「宗教化」与培训-认证产业链、最大竞争对手其实是「no decision/维持现状」而非对手; (h) 流派/思想谱系 — 提问诊断派(Rackham SPIN/Bosworth&Eades Solution Selling/Keenan Gap Selling) vs 挑战教学派(Dixon&Adamson Challenger/Force Management Command of the Message) vs 资格纪律派(MEDDIC: Napoli&Dunkel 起源/John McMahon/MEDDICC Andy Whyte) vs 关系战略派(Miller Heiman Strategic/Large Account) vs SaaS 现代收入架构派(Aaron Ross Predictable Revenue/Mark Roberge Sales Acceleration Formula/Jacco van der Kooij Winning by Design bowtie/David Skok 指标) vs 开发-心态派(Jeb Blount Fanatical Prospecting/Sales EQ、Anthony Iannarino、Josh Braun) vs 谈判(Chris Voss Never Split the Difference 战术同理心)。不含: B2C/零售/电商导购销售、纯电话客服/客户支持、纯渠道/分销管理(channel 虽相关但聚焦直销复杂销售)、纯 marketing/需求生成(demand gen 虽上游但本 skill 聚焦销售执行)、纯 CSM 客户成功(虽相关但聚焦 new logo + expansion 的销售动作)。) Master OS — automated mastery of B2B 大客户销售 / 企业级复杂销售 (Enterprise B2B Sales / Complex Selling) — 面向企业客户的高价值、长周期、多干系人复杂销售的职业认知操作系统，从业者(AE/客户经理/SE 售前/销售负责人 VP Sales/CRO)、想入行者、以及服务这行(销售咨询/enablement/RevOps)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 三大方法论流派之争: **买方主导的诊断式提问 (consultative/discovery-led: SPIN 提问 → 痛点 → 方案, 「像医生先诊断再开方」) ⇄ 卖方主导的教学式挑战 (Challenger: Teach-Tailor-Take control, 用商业洞见 reframe 客户认知, 「像老师挑战客户的既有想法」) ⇄
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。
Counts and compares blog posts across a target and competitors, audits content freshness via sitemap lastmod dates, and maps competitor organic keywords (US, non-branded, informational) against the target to surface ranking gaps. Use when asked to compare blog counts, content volume, publishing cadence, content freshness, keyword mapping, keyword gap analysis, or competitor keyword reports — e.g. "how many blog posts does X have vs Y", "how fresh is content on X", "where does [target] rank for [competitor] keywords", "keyword gap between X and Y". Works from company names alone. Always use for blog comparison, freshness audits, and keyword mapping 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。
Analyse student work against criteria to identify specific gaps between current performance and learning objectives. Use when reviewing submissions, planning feedback, or diagnosing learning needs.
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。
Use as the follow-up to brainstorm-beagle when a spec has an Open Questions section (or quietly carries latent gaps) that need closing before planning or implementation can begin. Triggers on: "resolve the open questions", "close the gaps in this spec", "research the open items", "finalize my spec", "make this spec implementation-ready", "answer the TBDs". Also triggers whenever the user points at a brainstorm-beagle spec and asks for research, proposals, or answers to unresolved items. Orchestrates parallel research subagents when available (falls back to inline sequential research otherwise), proposes answers one at a time for user approval, then rewrites the spec in place so it arrives at planning with no known gaps. Does NOT write code, design implementation, or create plans — it only produces a complete spec.
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。
Identify coverage gaps in existing insurance portfolios. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with coverage-gap-finder 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。
Compute a unified outer hull around a group of hex tiles that includes multiple disconnected sub-clusters separated by 1-tile gaps. Use when: (1) rendering nested hierarchy hulls (e.g. "package" hull wrapping multiple "sub-region" hex islands), (2) the naive boundary trace outlines each island separately instead of as one bag, (3) flood-fill from outside walks THROUGH the 1-hex gaps and marks them exterior, (4) heuristic "non-adjacent same-group neighbours" over-fills L-shape concavities, (5) axial-only opposite-pair filling misses non-axial bridges between islands. Solution: morphological close (dilate + erode) on the hex grid — fills exactly the interior 1-hex gaps without affecting exterior corners, then trace boundary on the closed shape.
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。
Research and analyze competitors to find positioning gaps and strategic opportunities. Use this skill whenever the user mentions competitors, competitive analysis, competitor teardown, market landscape, 'who else does this', 'how are we different', or competitor research. Also trigger when the user is entering a new market, when positioning feels weak or generic, when preparing for a launch, when any downstream skill needs competitors.md but it doesn't exist, or when the user asks about differentiation or market gaps. Even if the user just names a competitor casually ('what does X do?'), this skill likely applies. Three modes: Quick Scan, Deep Teardown, Gap Finder.
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。
Maps hunts and detections to MITRE ATT&CK for coverage analysis: tagging hypotheses with techniques, building a coverage matrix from completed hunts, and identifying high-risk gaps to prioritize next. Activates for requests to map hunts to ATT&CK, build a coverage heatmap, or find detection gaps by technique.
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。
基于域健康报告和沙盘Gap记录，识别断裂模式，生成具体的补全行动方案：新Skill提案/现有Skill修改建议/缺失触发链路描述。与 skill-evolution-planner-meta 的区别：后者基于历史日志做宏观演进规划；本Skill基于具体Gap证据做定向修复。触发词：「优化[域名]域」「修复[域名]域Gap」「[域名]域自优化」「根据健康报告生成修复方案」。通常由 skill-closure-verifier-meta 调用，也可独立触发。
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 workforce skill gap identification systems and labor market alignment. Triggers: you need to evaluate skill taxonomy quality, individual and aggregate gap analysis accuracy.
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。
Ward the codebase — an ad-hoc test-gap audit that reveals unguarded code (untested functions, uncovered edge cases, missing error-handling and integration tests) and conjures ready-to-paste test skeletons as protective wards against regression, surfaced inline in the session. Scoped to your current diff by default, or to a path/area you name. Use before merging risky changes or when you suspect thin coverage. Replaces the old always-on `testgaps` daemon worker (alias: /test-gaps).
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。