「quest」の検索結果

Turns a legal question, a set of draft questions, or source material such as a statute, jury instruction, rubric, contract checklist, or coding manual into a battery of narrow questions that TypeSafe's Jev, a fast classifier that returns probabilities rather than prose, can answer reliably across many documents. The skill breaks conclusions such as negligence, felony murder, or standing into element-level questions, writes the governing rule into each question, and delivers the questions alone, in Jev's request format or in plain English. Built for legal work that asks the same questions of many texts: coding statutes across jurisdictions, coding opinions or case files for empirical research, checking contracts against a review checklist, screening intake narratives, and grading student work against a rubric. Use when asked to write Jev questions, build a classifier for legal documents, or turn a legal test into yes-or-no questions. Running the questions requires Jev access; writing them does not.

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 one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. 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。

Self-tuning question sensitivity + developer psychographic for gstack (v1: observational). Review which AskUserQuestion prompts fire across gstack skills, set per-question preferences (never-ask / always-ask / ask-only-for-one-way), inspect the dual-track profile (what you declared vs what your behavior suggests), and enable/disable question tuning. Conversational interface — no CLI syntax required. Use when asked to "tune questions", "stop asking me that", "too many questions", "show my profile", "what questions have I been asked", "show my vibe", "developer profile", or "turn off question tuning". (gstack) Proactively suggest when the user says the same gstack question has come up before, or when they explicitly override a recommendation for the Nth time.

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。

自分だけでは判断できない課題を、詳しい相手に渡す質問票へまとめます。相手の役割と知りたい事実を確認し、回答欄付きのMarkdown文書を作るスキル。

• 判断に必要な情報を集めたいとき
• 専門家への質問を準備したいとき
• 会議前に文書で回答をもらいたいとき

Create, write, or manage Meta ads and assets: ad copy, campaigns, spend, reports, audiences, catalogs, product feeds, feed refresh schedules, experiments, and policy. Always load for any request to create or write an ad, or to advertise a product or service, even when no platform is named; this includes sensitive or restricted categories. Always load for any question asking what a Meta, Facebook, or Instagram advertising policy means, allows, prohibits, or requires, including a standalone policy-definition question with no account context. Those questions must use ads_policy_tool, never browser search or memory. Load for a specifically named catalog or feed with an upload or refresh-schedule request; use Ads reads to resolve ownership before writing. Generic unnamed feeds need context. Whether an image, claim or piece of copy may be used in an ad is ALWAYS a Meta Ads task — 'can I use this in an ad', 'is it allowed', 'is this against policy', and any rights, likeness, celebrity, logo or trademark question about advertising with an image, including a follow-up about one just generated. Those are ads-policy questions, not general legal ones. An ad request uses the campaign workflow unless explicitly only an image or organic post.

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。

[omh] Vague, underspecified request: one-question-at-a-time clarification. Use when the user says: deep-interview, interview me, clarify, feature shaping, ambiguous product request, one question, 要件を詰めて, 曖昧な要求.

Create, write, or manage Meta ads and assets: ad copy, campaigns, spend, reports, audiences, catalogs, product feeds, feed refresh schedules, experiments, and policy. Always load for any request to create or write an ad, or to advertise a product or service, even when no platform is named; this includes sensitive or restricted categories. Always load for any question asking what a Meta, Facebook, or Instagram advertising policy means, allows, prohibits, or requires, including a standalone policy-definition question with no account context. Those questions must use ads_policy_tool, never browser search or memory. Load for a specifically named catalog or feed with an upload or refresh-schedule request; use Ads reads to resolve ownership before writing. Generic unnamed feeds need context. Whether an image, claim or piece of copy may be used in an ad is ALWAYS a Meta Ads task — 'can I use this in an ad', 'is it allowed', 'is this against policy', and any rights, likeness, celebrity, logo or trademark question about advertising with an image, including a follow-up about one just generated. Those are ads-policy questions, not general legal ones. An ad request uses the campaign workflow unless explicitly only an image or organic post.

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。

Systemic questioning techniques: Circular questions, scaling questions, miracle question, and exception questions for reflection and perspective expansion.

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。

Systemic and solution-focused methods: miracle question, scaling, exception exploration, circular questions, hypothetical questions, worsening questions, coping questions. Merged from solution-focused-therapy and 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。

Turns a control list and an audit scope into draft evidence requests grouped by control owner, each with the control as stated, the audit period, evidence examples (commonly requested) and a proposed due date derived from the fieldwork dates. Never judges whether evidence is sufficient, never selects the sample and never sends a request; the auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the evidence requests", "draft the PBC list", "build the evidence request pack for the audit" or "what do we need to ask each control owner for". Do not use for document requests and interview questions built from an audit plan, use audit-prep-pack instead; to check claims in a report against sources, use claims-evidence-map. 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。

Pull Request / Merge Request を作成するときに必ず参照する。`gh pr create`/`glab mr create` で PR/MR を作る、コミット済みの作業をレビューに出す、並列・stacked 作業の各ブランチで PR を起こす、といった場面で使う。リポジトリの pull_request_template/merge_request_template を決定論スクリプトで検出して優先し、テンプレの骨組み（見出し・チェックリスト・順序）を改変せず入力箇所を埋めるだけにする（作成前に骨組み照合ゲートで機械検証）。無ければ汎用観点で本文を構成。本文の素材は対象リポジトリの git 差分のみに限定し、他リポジトリ・他タスクの内容を混入させない。draft 既定。head が保護ブランチ（GitHub 上・origin/HEAD の既定ブランチ、main・master・develop・trunk・release 系など）のときだけ push と作成の前にユーザー承認を取り、それ以外は確認せず push して作成する。GitHub(gh) 基本、GitLab(glab) 等にも対応。

Apple オンデバイス機械学習フレームワークリファレンス。 Core ML / Create ML / Vision / Natural Language / Speech。 MLModel, MLModelConfiguration, MLMultiArray, MLComputeUnits, MLImageClassifier, MLTextClassifier, MLDataTable, VNImageRequestHandler, VNRecognizeTextRequest, VNCoreMLRequest, NLTagger, NLLanguageRecognizer, NLEmbedding, SFSpeechRecognizer, SFSpeechAudioBufferRecognitionRequest, SFTranscription。

Create branch, atomic commits, push, and open a pull request with terse, exact messages. Conventional branch + commit format. PR title ≤70 chars, body says "why", not "what". Use when the user says "create pr", "create pullrequest", "create pull request", "make pr", "open pr", "open pullrequest", "open pull request", "submit pr", "raise pr", "/create-pr", or asks to ship/send changes as a pull request (PR/pullrequest/pull-request, any spelling).

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。

実装完了後に全テストを確認し、ローカルでのマージ、Pull Request作成、現状維持を選んで進めます。選択と作業環境に応じてブランチや作業領域を整理します。

• 完成した機能をローカルでマージする
• ブランチをpushしてPRを作る
• 完成した変更を後で統合したいとき

Deeply analyze any empirical economics PDF using the five-question framework (五问框架): research question, identification strategy, core estimand, robustness logic, and scholarly contribution. Converts the PDF to Markdown, dispatches 5 parallel sub-agents (one per question), then compiles a 2000–3000 Chinese-character report with a transferable methodology checklist. Optimized for empirical economics papers in top journals (AER, QJE, JPE, RFS, RoF, JFE, etc.). Use this skill whenever the user wants to: - systematically analyze an empirical economics paper - apply the 五问框架 (five-question framework) to a paper - extract transferable research design elements from a top-journal paper - understand a paper's identification strategy, estimand, or robustness logic - run /five-questions, /five-q, or /paper-five-q-analysis - "帮我做五问分析", "用五问框架分析这篇论文", "analyze this paper with the five-question framework"

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。

Track Claude's best and worst questions in DuckDB. Use when Claude asks a notably good or bad question, or to review question quality. Triggers: leaderboard, bad question, good question, question quality.

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。

Pre-fills a customer's or prospect's security or third-party risk questionnaire from the organisation's own answer sources (prior questionnaires, answer library, policies), returning one row per question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted, Missing or Routed, its source, date, scope match and owner, plus the Missing list by owner. Never invents an answer, certification or control and never submits. Use when the user asks to "pre-fill this security questionnaire", "take a first pass at the customer's due diligence form", "answer this vendor assessment from our previous responses", "populate the third-party risk questionnaire" or "which questions can we reuse answers for". Do not use for screening a vendor's own answers, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for RFP or tender answers use rfp-response-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。

Hunt HTTP request smuggling (CL.TE, TE.CL, H2.CL, H2.TE). Cause: front-end proxy and back-end server disagree on where one request ends and the next begins (Content-Length vs Transfer-Encoding header parsing inconsistency). CL.TE: front-end uses CL, back uses TE → smuggle by sending TE: chunked but with body that fits CL count. TE.CL: opposite. H2.CL: HTTP/2 downgrade, smuggle CL into HTTP/1.1 back-end. Detection tools: Burp HTTP Request Smuggler extension, smuggler.py, h2csmuggler. Confirm: time-delay technique (smuggled GET with 30s timeout) — if front-end returns slow on next victim request, smuggling works. Validate: cache poisoning chain (smuggle request that gets cached for victim), credential theft (smuggle X-Forwarded-For override that captures next user's cookies), bypass auth (smuggled internal-path request). Real paid examples from major CDN deployments. Use when hunting H1 paid programs running CDN+origin stacks, when targeting load balancer / WAF bypass.

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。

Clarifies a vague clinical or biomedical research idea into a structured, bounded, searchable, researchable, and testable question. Always use this skill whenever a user has an early-stage clinical or research thought, an over-broad topic, an ill-defined evidence question, or an unclear problem statement that must be translated into a question framing suitable for literature retrieval, evidence synthesis, gap analysis, study design, or downstream protocol planning. Never jump straight to answering the substantive medical question unless the user explicitly asks for that. Focus first on question framing, boundary setting, and downstream-ready formulation.

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。

Answer Viking AI Search product questions, CLI usage questions, API/auth questions, configuration questions, and troubleshooting questions by grounding every claim in either the installed `vs` CLI's own output or official Volcengine documentation. Never fabricate.

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 hunting Pwn Request vulnerabilities where pull_request_target workflows checkout attacker-controlled PR code and execute it in a privileged context with access to repository secrets. Trigger on: "pwn request", "pull_request_target", "checkout PR head", "npm install in CI", "lifecycle scripts in CI", "preinstall script", "postinstall script", "package.json scripts CI", "npm ci ignore-scripts false", "actions/checkout ref pull request head sha", privileged workflow running PR code, "Gato-X", supply chain via PR lifecycle scripts.

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。

Creates GitHub Pull Requests with existing PR detection, branch pushing, and intelligent title/body generation. Use when user requests to create pull request, open PR, update PR, push for review, ready for review, send for review, get this reviewed, make a PR, share code, request review, create draft PR, submit for review, run /create-pr command, or mentions "PR", "pull request", "merge request", "code review", "GitHub PR", or "draft".

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。

Prepares a DRAFT internal audit pack from the audit plan: scope as stated, criteria with clauses quoted from the documents provided, document requests per auditee with due dates, open interview questions per process and role, previous findings to follow up and a readiness checklist. Never pre-judges conformity, writes findings or selects the sample; the lead auditor decides. Use when the user asks to "prepare the internal audit", "build the audit pack from this plan", "draft the document requests and interview questions" or "get us ready for the supplier audit". Do not use for evidence requests built from a control list, use control-evidence-request-pack instead; to chase actions from earlier audits, use corrective-action-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。

Prepares a DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill 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。