「boundary」の検索結果

Normative sufficiency conditions for Initial Boundary Conditions (IBCs) and the SOP for the cheap-tier boundary refinement loop (/boundary). Trigger when: - Crafting, auditing, or refining a prompt/IBC destined for an expensive (architect-class) model or an autonomous worker dispatch. - Evaluating whether a task frame is sufficient to bound an agent walk. - Prompt contains: /boundary, IBC, initial boundary condition, boundary contract, sufficiency conditions, worker prompt, prompt refinement.

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。

Set a boundary with someone — a friend, family member, coworker, or partner — clearly and kindly, with the actual words and a plan for the pushback. Use when asked how do I set a boundary with, I need to say no to, someone keeps overstepping, or help me set limits with. Produces a read on the boundary you actually need, a warm-but-firm script to state it (without over-explaining or apologizing it away), how to hold it when they push back or guilt-trip, and what to do if they don't respect it — because a boundary you can't state and hold isn't a boundary.

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。

Detects TAD boundaries from balanced Hi-C contact matrices via the diamond-window insulation score (cooltools insulation) and HiCExplorer hicFindTADs, returning a continuous log2 insulation track, valley-prominence boundary_strength, and Li/Otsu-thresholded is_boundary flags across a list of window sizes. Covers the multi-scale window sweep (sub-TAD to compartment-domain), why the boundary is reproducible but the domain partition is not, cross-condition comparison via differential SCORE not differential partition, and the insulation-vs-compartment orthogonality. Use when calling TADs or domain boundaries, computing insulation scores, choosing a window size, ranking boundary strength, comparing boundaries across conditions, or annotating CTCF-backed boundaries; route domain rendering to hic-visualization and boundary-feature overlap to genome-intervals.

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。

Detects TAD boundaries from balanced Hi-C contact matrices via the diamond-window insulation score (cooltools insulation) and HiCExplorer hicFindTADs, returning a continuous log2 insulation track, valley-prominence boundary_strength, and Li/Otsu-thresholded is_boundary flags across a list of window sizes. Covers the multi-scale window sweep (sub-TAD to compartment-domain), why the boundary is reproducible but the domain partition is not, cross-condition comparison via differential SCORE not differential partition, and the insulation-vs-compartment orthogonality. Use when calling TADs or domain boundaries, computing insulation scores, choosing a window size, ranking boundary strength, comparing boundaries across conditions, or annotating CTCF-backed boundaries; route domain rendering to hic-visualization and boundary-feature overlap to genome-intervals.

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 Remix v2 error-handling code for the unified ErrorBoundary, isRouteErrorResponse narrowing, throw-vs-return, root boundary scaffolding, and v1 holdovers (CatchBoundary, useCatch). Use when reviewing routes that throw or define ErrorBoundary in a Remix v2 codebase.

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。

React Server Components vs Client Components in Next.js: the boundary discipline, "use client" / "use server" directives, Server Actions, what serializes across the boundary, common pitfalls. Use this skill to: - Decide whether a component should be RSC or Client. - Push the "use client" boundary as deep as possible. - Implement Server Actions correctly (auth, validation, revalidation). - Compose RSC and Client components without breaking the model. - Pass data across the boundary safely. Do NOT use this skill for: - General Next.js conventions (see nextjs-conventions). - Specific data-fetching APIs and caching (see nextjs-data-fetching). - Routing (see nextjs-routing).

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 asked to check whether a figure is audited, which headline numbers sit outside the audited accounts, what 'adjusted' or 'underlying' means in this report, or who is vouching for the numbers in the highlights. For every headline figure in the highlights, chairman's statement and CEO review of an uploaded annual report, states whether it sits inside or outside the audited statements and what was added or removed versus the nearest audited number. Produces a boundary table, the list of figures outside the boundary, and a plain-English summary of who is vouching for what. Educational, not financial advice.

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 and enforce the core/client boundary in multi-client projects. Detects where shared platform code is tangled with client-specific code, finds hardcoded client checks, config files that replace instead of merge, scattered client code, migration conflicts, and missing extension points. Produces a boundary map, violation report, and refactoring plan. Optionally generates FORK.md documentation and restructuring scripts. Triggers: 'fork discipline', 'check the boundary', 'is this core or client', 'platform audit', 'client separation', 'fork test', 'refactor for multi-client', 'clean up the fork'.

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。

Identifies boundaries between modules or components in software systems through static code analysis and dependency detection. Use when Claude needs to analyze software architecture, identify module boundaries, detect boundary violations, find circular dependencies, or assess component coupling. Supports Python (packages and imports) and Java (packages and dependencies). Trigger when users ask to "identify boundaries", "find component boundaries", "detect boundary violations", "analyze module structure", "check architecture", or "find circular dependencies".

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。

Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for Android APK hooking, Frida tracing, request-signing recovery, SSL pinning bypass, JNI boundary inspection, and app trust-boundary analysis. Use when the user asks to hook an APK, inspect signer logic, trace Java or native boundaries, bypass pinning or root checks, inspect shared prefs or app databases, or replay accepted mobile requests. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.

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。

AI demos and GPU compute with Gradio Spaces and Hugging Face Spaces ZeroGPU. Use when writing or reviewing code that uses `@spaces.GPU`, configuring `python_version` or `requirements.txt` for a ZeroGPU Space, or handling ZeroGPU-specific code constraints — pickle-based process isolation, `gr.State` semantics across the worker boundary, no `torch.compile` (use AoTI instead), CUDA wheel-only builds (no `nvcc` at build or runtime), large vs xlarge sizing, and dynamic duration callables. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user mentions ZeroGPU, `@spaces.GPU`, or the `spaces` Python package, or hits ZeroGPU-specific code errors like `PicklingError` across the worker boundary, `illegal duration`, or `flash-attn` wheel-build failures — even when the user does not explicitly ask for ZeroGPU coding guidance. Trigger on `import spaces` or `@spaces.GPU` in 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。

Problem-solving strategies for boundary value problems in odes pdes

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。

Identifies non-coding RNAs (tRNA, rRNA, snoRNA, snRNA, riboswitches, sRNAs) using Infernal covariance-model search against Rfam, tRNAscan-SE 2.0 for tRNA, barrnap for rRNA, and ARAGORN for tmRNA, plus the small-RNA-seq boundary for miRNA and the transcript-assembly boundary for lncRNA. Covers the structure-conserved-not-sequence-conserved principle (why BLAST fails), GA-threshold and clan-competition correctness, tRNAscan-SE domain modes and pseudogene flags, rDNA copy-number collapse, and why homology annotation is a recall floor. Use when performing genome-wide ncRNA annotation, choosing the right tool for an RNA class, or interpreting ncRNA counts.

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。

React error boundary hierarchy, fallback UI patterns, offline-first fallback, retry mechanisms, and graceful degradation.

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 add or review fuzz testing for Java APIs with CATS — including contract-driven negative testing, malformed payload validation, boundary input exploration, CI integration, reproducible failures, and local execution guidance. This should trigger for requests such as Add fuzz testing to a Java project; Use CATS for API negative testing; Review CI quality gates for API contract robustness; Improve boundary and malformed input test coverage; Run CATS fuzz tests against an OpenAPI contract. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 apply testing strategies for Java code — RIGHT-BICEP to guide test creation, A-TRIP for test quality characteristics, or CORRECT for verifying boundary conditions. This should trigger for requests such as Review Java code for testing strategies; Apply RIGHT-BICEP testing strategies in Java code; Apply A-TRIP testing strategies in Java code; Apply CORRECT boundary condition verification in Java code. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 edge case, corner case, boundary condition, and limit testing patterns for Java unit tests. Validates minimum/maximum values, null cases, empty collections, numeric overflow/underflow, floating-point precision, and off-by-one scenarios using JUnit 5 and AssertJ. Use when writing .java test files to ensure code handles limits, corner cases, and special inputs correctly.

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。

Fix JavaScript regex failures when matching CJK (Chinese/Japanese/Korean) text using \b word boundaries. Use when: (1) Regex pattern with \b silently fails to match Japanese, Chinese, or Korean text, (2) Pattern works for Latin/ASCII text but not CJK, (3) hasDriverLicenceCue or similar text-detection function returns false for CJK input despite correct characters, (4) inferIssuerFromTitleText or pattern-matching functions fail on non-Latin scripts. Root cause: JavaScript \b only recognizes [a-zA-Z0-9_] as "word characters" — CJK characters are classified as \W (non-word), so \b before/after CJK always sees a non-word/non-word boundary and fails to match.

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 formal verification artifacts (Isabelle, Coq, Dafny, etc.) and produce structured reports identifying the precise boundary between verified, assumed, and unverified components. Use when assessing verification coverage, understanding trust boundaries, auditing formal proofs, or documenting verification scope. Reports explicitly list verified code, assumptions, axioms, trusted computing base, and unverified components. Conservative and explicit about verification status without attempting to repair or mask 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。

Automatically identify potential boundary and exception cases from requirements, specifications, or existing code, and generate comprehensive test cases targeting boundary conditions, edge cases, and uncommon scenarios. Use this skill when analyzing programs, code repositories, functions, or APIs to discover and test corner cases, null handling, overflow conditions, empty inputs, concurrent access patterns, and other exceptional scenarios that are often missed in standard 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。

Apply security-conscious thinking when generating or modifying code. Enforces trust boundary awareness, input validation, injection prevention, secrets management, and defense-in-depth authorization. Use when generating code that handles user input, authentication, authorization, database queries, external APIs, or file operations, or when the user mentions 'security review', 'secure this', 'check for vulnerabilities', 'trust boundary', 'input validation', or 'OWASP'. Loaded automatically by the code-generating molecules (code-forge, refactor-safely, bug-fix). This skill governs the security posture of generated code -- not architecture (see architecture) and not code craft (see clean-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。

GitHub 解封 — 账号封禁/限制/恢复的领域操作系统。覆盖：(a) GitHub 官方政策体系 (TOS / 可接受使用政策 / Trust & Safety 执行模式 / 公开申诉路径 / 受制裁地区解读)；(b) 封号原因诊断学 (spam / abuse / 制裁误标 / 2FA 丢失 / ToS 违规 / 账号劫持误判 / ban evasion 等子类型 + 症状→原因映射 + 自我分诊压测)；(c) 申诉实操 craft (写一封能让 T&S 快速判误伤的英文申诉信 + 升级阶梯 + 法务介入边界 + Don'ts)；(d) 制裁与合规硬边界 (OFAC SDN 名单 / 哪些国家或地区真不可达 / VPN 误判路径 / 中国大陆不是美国制裁地区的反复重申)；(e) 中国大陆开发者特别处境 (sanctioned region 误标 + SMS 验证不支持 +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab 备用迁移 + 私有自托管 Gitea/Forgejo)；(f) 真实案例库 (~30+ 公开案例分类拆解：误伤 / 真违规 / 制裁误标三类各自赔率与申诉成功路径)。伦理锚绝不软化：不教 ban evasion / 不教撒谎式申诉 / 真违规承认改进 / 丢 2FA 无恢复因子则诚实告知 / 中国制裁误标靠申诉不靠换 VPN / 申诉 6 个月窗口必算清 / 约 3% (业内估) 真违规恢复 vs 约 79% (业内估) 误伤申诉成功率分层标。 (GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: false-positive / genuine violation / sanctions mis-flag, each with win-rate and appeal success path). Ethical anchors absolutely not softened: do NOT teach ban evasion (creating new accounts turns a temp ban into a permanent one — the single biggest mistake); do NOT teach social engineering or lying in appeals (misuse + actually confirms violation); genuine violations: admit + improve beats denial; lost 2FA + no recovery factor → do not pretend recovery is possible; China sanctioned-region mis-flag → fix via appeal, not repeated VPN switching; appeal form 6-month window must be counted carefully; historical 约 3% (业内估) genuine-violation recovery vs 约 79% (业内估) false-positive appeal success rate stratification must be honestly labeled. Anti-samples (explicitly describe harm, never endorse): developer permabanned for ban evasion / open-source team org-banned for personal attacks in public issues / cases where repeated VPN switching escalated risk-control severity.) Master OS — automated mastery of GitHub Account Reinstatement — the domain operating system for GitHub (and analogous platform) account suspension, restriction, appeal, and recovery. Covers: (a) GitHub official policy architecture (TOS / Acceptable Use Policies / Trust & Safety enforcement patterns / public appeals pathways / sanctioned-region interpretation); (b) suspension-cause diagnostics (spam / abuse / sanctions mis-flag / 2FA loss / ToS violation / account hijack false-positive / ban evasion taxonomy + symptom→cause mapping + self-triage pressure test); (c) appeal craft (writing an English appeal letter that gets T&S to fast-track a false-positive ruling + escalation ladder + legal-engagement boundary + Don'ts); (d) sanctions and compliance hard boundaries (OFAC SDN list / which countries/regions are truly unreachable / VPN false-positive paths / China is NOT a US-sanctioned region — repeated emphasis); (e) mainland China developer special circumstances (sanctioned-region mis-flag + SMS verification does not support +86/+852 + Gitee/GitLab/Codeberg/JihuLab fallback migration + self-hosted Gitea/Forgejo); (f) real-case library (~30+ public cases with categorized analysis: fa

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 building cases for any input, form, endpoint or state change - boundary values, invalid and hostile data, authz and concurrency cases with a worked example

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。

DDDの集約(Aggregate)設計ルールに基づくコードレビュー・設計支援・リファクタリングを行う。 Evans Rules、Vernon's 4 Rules、Design by Contractに基づき、集約の境界定義、不変条件の検証、 不変(Immutable)設計、ID参照、結果整合性、ドメインイベント連携を包括的にガイドする。 以下のいずれかに該当する場合は必ずこのスキルを使用すること： - 集約(Aggregate)の新規設計・実装・リファクタリング（どの言語でも） - 既存の集約やエンティティクラスのDDD観点でのコードレビュー - 集約の境界決定（「AとBは同じ集約にすべきか？」「この集約は大きすぎるか？」） - 集約内の不変条件・整合性境界の設計 - 集約間の連携方式の判断（ドメインイベント、結果整合性、Sagaパターン） - 可変(Mutable)な集約コードを不変(Immutable)設計にリファクタリングする - publicフィールド、直接参照、push/appendなどカプセル化違反の検出・修正 キーワード例：集約、Aggregate、aggregate boundary、集約ルート、AggregateRoot、 エンティティ設計、DDD実装、Vernon Rules、Evans Rules、集約の分割、真の不変条件