「blocker」の検索結果

Link component, useNavigate, Navigate component, router.navigate, ToOptions/NavigateOptions/LinkOptions, from/to relative navigation, activeOptions/activeProps, preloading (intent/viewport/render), preloadDelay, navigation blocking (useBlocker, Block), createLink, linkOptions helper, scroll restoration, MatchRoute.

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 a self-contained handoff document so another session, person or machine continues the work without this session's context: decisions and why, what is done and tested, exact paths and values, open blockers, boundaries, and an explicit continue-from-here step. Lands in a synced folder with a short seed prompt. Triggers: "/handoff", "prepare a handoff", "hand this 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。

Erzeugt aus einem Bestand offener und gefallener Entscheidungen einen strukturierten ASCII-Abhängigkeitsgraphen (maximal 100 Spalten) für das Terminal. Bewertet Knoten nach fünf festen Kriterien: sinnvoll, empfohlen, usertypisch (Richtung und decision-avatar-Konfidenz getrennt), zusammenpassend und widersprechend; Kanten tragen Beziehungstyp und Belegstatus. Deckt Blocker, Freischaltungen, Reihenfolgen und widersprüchliche Empfehlungen gnadenlos auf. Nutze diesen Skill bei "welche Entscheidungen hängen voneinander ab", "Abhängigkeitsgraph der Entscheidungen", "Entscheidungspfad visualisieren", "Widersprüche zwischen Entscheidungen prüfen", "Reihenfolge der Beschlüsse", /decision-path. NICHT nutzen, um Entscheidungen erst zu inventarisieren -- das macht decision-briefing; NICHT nutzen, um das empfohlene Gesamtkonzept zur Abnahme zu bündeln -- das macht decision-draw; NICHT für kompakte Fünfteiler- Einzelblöcke mit Optionen und Pro/Contra -- das macht decision-shot; NICHT für die Einzelfall-Erwägung mit Frameworks -- das macht decide.

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。

Flexible Bedingungssprache für Ziele, Prompts und Aufträge. Übersetzt Bedingungen, Zeitpunkte und Reihenfolge-Abhängigkeiten in prüfbare Gates, damit ein Teilschritt erst nach belegter Freigabe ausgeführt wird. Immer verwenden bei /condition, /if, /if-only, /when, /after, /and oder /or sowie bei Formulierungen wie "erst wenn", "sobald", "nur falls", "nachdem", "warte bis", "danach" oder "vorher nicht". Auch verwenden, wenn mehrere Teilziele voneinander abhängen oder ein Goal eine spätere Freigabe enthält.

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。

Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, use project-status-tracker. 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。

Maps every proposed P&ID object from an accepted enrichment draft to the generic family, catalogue class and required attributes the project's intelligent P&ID authoring tool would need, as a readiness table with UNKNOWN wherever the project catalogue extract is not provided, plus connectivity readiness per line and a numbered list of import blockers. Mapping only: it never writes to the tool, never produces an import file and never claims a class exists in the catalogue. Use when the user asks to "build the readiness map", "show how far the draft is from a sandbox import", "list what would block the import", "map the objects to the tool catalogue" or "check attribute readiness against the catalogue extract" after gate G3. Do not use for validating the discipline sections or assembling the review package, use validation-and-review-package 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。

Assess pipeline layer state, detect prerequisite blockers, classify audit status, and persist remediation plan

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 working with Changesets — changesets version management covering changeset file inventory, pending version bump analysis, package release readiness, changelog generation status, and monorepo release coordination. Use when auditing pending changesets, investigating release blockers, reviewing version bump strategies, or managing multi-package release workflows.

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 task should repeat on a schedule or until a condition holds (CI until green, follow a PR to merge, review rounds until no blockers, daily session summary). Ships ready prompt templates with run and duration limits, stop conditions and go-gate safety rules, and per-harness loop invocation.

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。

Diagnose App Store submission blockers and operate review health with asc, including readiness validation, repair routing, status monitoring, cancellation, and retry decisions. Use when validation fails, a version is not in a valid state, review status is unclear or stuck, or a failed submission must be repaired and retried. For staging, upload, publication, and submission execution, use asc-release-flow.

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。

Team standup board (Busabase App-in-Skill) for team leads. Use when the user invokes $kelly-standup or /kelly-standup, or asks for standup, daily standup, 晨会, daily check-in, team status board, 团队日报, blockers, who's working on what, team digest, check-in streaks, missing check-in reminders, or collecting async updates from Slack/WeCom/Discord/WhatsApp/docs into one board.

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。

Diagnoses why a session recording is missing or was not captured. Use when a user asks why a session has no replay, why recordings aren't appearing, or wants to troubleshoot session replay capture issues for a specific session ID or across their project. Covers SDK diagnostic signals, project settings, sampling, triggers, ad blockers, and quota/billing scenarios.

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 user wants a code review of an explicit range or set of files — correctness, security, performance, conventions, tests — with stable findings (CR-nnn, BLOCKER..INFO) and rule citations — 'revisar os últimos commits', 'code review da feature X', 'review base..HEAD'. Plans a REPORT-mode review (no code changes, no commit). Do NOT use to fix code (feat-feature / feat-quick), to write tests (feat-test) or for UI/UX design critique.

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。

Execute approved PWDEV Flow plans one atomic task at a time with test-first implementation, fresh verification, blocker handling, and durable evidence. Use after the plan gate is approved or for approved Flow correction 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。

Orchestrates legacy AEM (6.x, AMS, on-prem) to AEM as a Cloud Service migration using BPA CSV or cache, CAM/MCP target discovery, and one-pattern-per-session workflow. Use for BPA/CAM findings, Cloud Service blockers, or fixes for scheduler, ResourceChangeListener, replication, EventListener, OSGi EventHandler, DAM AssetManager, HTL data-sly-test lint. OSGi configs → Cloud Manager — scan ui.config, .cfg.json, secrets, $[secret:]/$[env:] — agent follows references/osgi-cfg-json-cloud-manager.md when prompted. Transformation steps live in the best-practices skill—read it and the right references/ modules before editing code.

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。

Evaluate learning progress, identify blockers, and adjust the learning plan

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。

Risk-tiered code review (Blocker / High / Medium / Low). Use when the user runs /review or wants the current branch or diff reviewed.

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 structured weekly status reports covering initiatives, progress, blockers, risks, and KPIs.

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。

Migrates legacy AEM (6.x, AMS, on-prem) to AEM as a Cloud Service using BPA CSV or cache, CAM/MCP target discovery, and a one-pattern-per-session workflow. Use for BPA/CAM findings, Cloud Service blockers, or fixes for scheduler, ResourceChangeListener, replication, EventListener, OSGi EventHandler, DAM AssetManager, HTL data-sly-test lint. OSGi configs → Cloud Manager — scan ui.config, .cfg.json, secrets, $[secret:]/$[env:] — agent follows references/osgi-cfg-json-cloud-manager.md when prompted. After BPA/CAM discovery, migration hands off each (pattern, file) pair to the code-assessment skill — code-assessment owns the five pattern guides (scheduler/, resource-change-listener/, replication/, event-migration/, asset-manager/) and the shared references for SCR→DS, ResourceResolver/SLF4J, HTL lint, and prerequisites.

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。

Hunting skill for ssrf vulnerabilities. Built from 15 public bug bounty reports including AWS metadata SSRF (HackerOne $25k Analytics PDF, Shopify Exchange $25k, Capital One 106M-record breach, Dropbox/HelloSign $4,913), GCP metadata SSRF (Snapchat $4k), Azure IMDS SSRF (Azure DevOps $15k chain, ChatGPT Custom Actions MSRC), DNS rebinding SSRF (Concrete CMS, GitLab UrlBlocker), gopher-protocol-to-Redis-RCE (Yahoo Mail $15k), link-preview SSRF (Reddit Matrix $6k), and headless-browser PDF-generator SSRF chains. Use when hunting SSRF on any target — OOB Collaborator confirmation mandatory for blind cases.

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。

Classify every destructive/gated action an agent body can attempt (git, filesystem, network, shell, github) into block/approve/allow tiers, and audit whether the pre-tool and post-tool governance backing that classification is real: blocked actions proven zero-side-effect by a negative fixture, every denial backed by a receipt and a transcript event, every block-tier denial paired with a safe alternative, and no unmanaged or same-UID body ever marked "contained." Use when building or reviewing Agent Harbor's C5 governance gate (destructive git blocker, approval request/result, denial receipts), gating a new tool surface before it can run destructive commands, or auditing whether an existing "destructive-action blocked" claim actually has evidence behind it. NOT for proving an existing sandbox boundary actually contains an adversary once an action is isolated (use sandboxed-adversarial-test-harness), deciding where in a DAG to place a human review node or designing the approval UX itself (use human-gate-designer), or designing the general work-receipt schema across an entire agent task (use agent-work-receipt-designer).

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。