2,435 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use this skill when reviewing, designing, or improving a workshop, lesson, training session, facilitation plan, talk, or educational explanation. Use it when the user provides a topic, concept, or explanation and wants better framing questions, curiosity hooks, opening prompts, discussion questions, learner reflection prompts, or ways to make participants think before being taught.
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。
Designs survey instruments, covering question wording, scale construction and index reliability, flow and treatment placement, pretesting and soft launches, respondent burden with attention and speeding rules, sensitive questions and social-desirability bias, and treatment delivery. Use when the user writes or revises survey questions, chooses a scale, orders blocks, plans a pilot, or worries respondents will not answer honestly. Indirect measurement goes to list-experiment, multi-country instruments to cross-national-design, and live-survey operations to qualtrics-ops.
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。
Designs survey instruments: question wording, scales and index reliability, flow and treatment placement, pretesting, attention and speeding rules, and sensitive questions. Use when writing or revising survey questions, choosing scales, ordering blocks, or planning a pilot.
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。
Advanced multi-agent reasoning system for complex questions requiring maximum accuracy. Uses adaptive technique selection, adversarial validation, multi-agent debate, and deep analysis. Trigger phrases "ai board", "expert panel", "deep analysis", "maximum accuracy", "thorough reasoning". Use for critical medical decisions, theological questions, philosophical analysis, complex technical problems, high-stakes decisions, or any question requiring 95%+ confidence.
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。
Ask the minimum clarifying questions before implementation when requirements are ambiguous or missing crucial details
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。
Interview Question Generator — produces 40-60 questions across behavioral (STAR), technical, culture, situational categories with scoring rubrics and recommended loop structure
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 feature or code change made by Claude is complete and the developer wants to confirm they actually understood it before shipping. Triggers on "handoff", "quiz me", "comprehension check", "did I understand this", "verify I read the code", "test my understanding", or after finishing a feature when the developer wants to take ownership of AI-written code. Also triggers on requests for an interactive or clickable quiz ("interactive mode", "let me answer with the mouse", "mode interactif", "je réponds à la souris"). Quizzes the developer on WHERE the logic lives (file/function) and WHY decisions were made (trade-offs, behavior, debugging), with the number of questions scaled to the size of the change. Multiple-choice questions are clickable by default (asked through `AskUserQuestion`) and fall back to typed answers. Points to file:line on wrong answers, allows one retry, then reveals the answer, and ends with a score plus the weak areas to re-read. Conducts the quiz in the developer'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。
Produces a Rule 506(d) bad actor disqualification review for private securities offerings, including a covered persons register, tailored questionnaires mapping to each disqualifying event category, a documented reasonable-care diligence record, and classification analysis of flagged events with remediation or disclosure recommendations. Use this skill when conducting Rule 506(d) diligence, identifying covered persons for a Regulation D offering, drafting bad actor questionnaires, or analyzing potential disqualifying events involving criminal convictions, SEC orders, SRO sanctions, or state regulatory actions. Also trigger when the user mentions bad actor screening, covered persons analysis, Rule 506(d) questionnaire, disqualification waiver, or reasonable care defense. Even if the user just says "bad actor check" or "506(d) diligence," use this 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。
Relentlessly interview the user about THEIR plan or design — one question at a time — resolving each branch of a decision tree until shared understanding. Claude is the interviewer; the user is the interviewee. Triggers on "grill me", "stress-test this plan", "get grilled on my design", "interrogate my plan". Checkpoints every answer to docs/knowledge/<slug>.md so progress survives a context-window reset. Flags knowledge the user cannot answer as a gap to chase. Do NOT use to PROPOSE solutions or compare approaches (→ mk:brainstorming). Do NOT use to validate "is this worth building?" (→ mk:office-hours). Do NOT use when Claude should ANSWER questions about the repo (→ mk:ask-me). Do NOT use for a one-shot review of an existing plan (→ mk:plan-ceo-review). Do NOT use to apply named reasoning lenses to findings (→ mk:elicit).
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 a raw idea into ONE honest recommendation: interview one question at a time until the problem, requirements, goals, non-goals, and constraints are CONFIRMED, then deliver a single verdict — do, don't, cheaper alternatives, trade-offs, ordered checklist, success metrics. Required: the user wants exactly ONE recommendation — not options, not a debate — and their framing is open to challenge (advise may answer a different question than the one asked). Triggers on "what should I do about X", "advise me on X", "am I approaching this right", "is this the right move". Do NOT use to be interrogated with no recommendation (→ mk:grill) — advise also interviews one question at a time, but only to reach a verdict. Do NOT use when the framing is settled and only the options are open (→ mk:brainstorming). Do NOT use to decide whether something is worth building (→ mk:office-hours). Do NOT use when you want several perspectives to argue it out (→ mk:party).
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。
系统化与焦点解决方法：奇迹提问、刻度提问、例外探索、循环提问、假设性提问、恶化提问、应对提问。合并自 solution-focused-therapy 与 systemic-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。
Техники системных вопросов: циркулярные вопросы, шкалирующие вопросы, вопрос о чуде и вопросы об исключениях для рефлексии и расширения перспектив.
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。
システム質問技法：リフレクションと視点の拡張のための循環質問、スケーリング質問、ミラクル・クエスチョン、例外質問。
系统提问技术：循环提问、刻度提问、奇迹提问和例外提问，用于自我反思与视角拓宽。
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。
Técnicas de preguntas sistémicas: Preguntas circulares, preguntas de escala, la pregunta del milagro y preguntas de excepción para la reflexión y la ampliación de perspectivas.
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。
Системные и ориентированные на решение методы: чудесный вопрос, шкалирование, поиск исключений, циркулярные вопросы, гипотетические вопросы, вопросы на ухудшение, вопросы на преодоление. Объединено из solution-focused-therapy и systemic-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。
Métodos sistémicos y enfocados en soluciones: pregunta del milagro, escala, exploración de excepciones, preguntas circulares, preguntas hipotéticas, preguntas de empeoramiento, preguntas de afrontamiento. Fusionado de solution-focused-therapy y systemic-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。
Drafts one service catalogue entry (description, scope in and out, owners and support groups, service levels exactly as provided, request path, dependencies, charging, lifecycle) from the service team's notes, questionnaire answers or existing documents, with UNKNOWN and a question list for every field the inputs do not cover. Never invents a service level, owner or price. Use when the user asks to "write the catalogue entry for this service", "turn these questionnaire answers into a service description", "tidy this request catalogue item" or "check this draft entry for empty fields". Do not use for a how-to or known-error article, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for operating procedures, use runbook-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。
Reads a purchase order extract (spreadsheet, CSV or pasted table) and returns a DRAFT question sheet for the buyer: possible split orders, round amounts, amounts just under an approval threshold, first-seen or near-duplicate vendors, duplicate orders and missing or self approvals, each a neutral question naming the PO numbers, never a finding. Use when the user asks to "review these purchase orders", "screen the PO log", "spot anomalies in this spend extract", "sanity-check the PO register" or "prepare buyer questions before the audit". Do not use for an expense claim or travel request checked against policy, use expense-policy-precheck instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Operating Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific sections, delivery and operational risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a COO review", "pressure-test the delivery plan", "what would our COO say about this", "check the timeline and capacity" or "find the execution gaps before the steering committee". Do not use for financial questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。
Flags where a P&ID draft raises a process safety question and points to the candidate evidence an engineer would review (HAZOP register, relief study, SIL assessment, isolation philosophy), as questions and quoted passages with UNKNOWN for missing documents, plus safety functions, relief devices and isolation requirements carried over as stated. Never rates, sizes, classifies, resolves or declares protection adequate. Use when the user asks to "write the process safety flags", "produce the process safety section of the P&ID enrichment", "list which protection questions this P&ID raises" or "map the HAZOP and relief study evidence to the draft" after gate G2, once the piping and instrumentation sections exist. Do not use for proposing loops, alarms or trips from the control philosophy, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use for checking identifiers, use tagging-and-numbering. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。
Explicit-only workflow that writes a safe Markdown questionnaire for another person. Use only when the user explicitly asks for a questionnaire.
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。