76 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Guides DPIA for migrating personal data to cloud infrastructure covering controller-processor analysis under Art. 28, international transfer assessment, encryption requirements, and shared responsibility model evaluation. Activate for cloud adoption, SaaS procurement, or data centre migration projects. Keywords: cloud migration, DPIA, Art. 28, processor, encryption, shared responsibility, SaaS, IaaS, PaaS.
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。
リファクタリングを「更新されたチームの理解と、コードが表現する過去の理解の差分同期」と捉え、今回得た新知識（要求・ドメイン知識・制約）が naming と responsibility へ反映されているか、boundary が現在の understanding を表現しているか、diff の削除行やコメントに現れる過去の design history と constraint を失っていないかを diff-time で確認する。Knowledge Delta の signal は diff（追加/削除された hunk・コメント・ADR 参照）を一次情報とし、PR 本文が供給されるときは補助に用い、不確実なら question に留める。ドメイン用語の一貫性は ubiquitous-language-naming、集約/コンテキスト境界の設計判断は bounded-context-language、投機的抽象化・caller special-case は altitude-generalization、スコープ逸脱/前提破壊は fix-scope-integrity、振る舞い変更と構造変更の分離は behavior-structure-separation、完了主張の反証は refactor-claim-audit へ委譲する
This skill outlines methodologies for performing authorized penetration testing against AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments. It covers understanding the shared responsibility model for testing scope, leveraging cloud-specific attack tools like Pacu and ScoutSuite, exploiting IAM misconfigurations, testing for SSRF to cloud metadata services, and reporting findings aligned to MITRE ATT&CK Cloud matrix.
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 the establishment and management of joint controller arrangements under GDPR Article 26, including determination of joint controllership, allocation of responsibilities, and transparency obligations. Activate when two or more controllers jointly determine purposes and means of processing, or when evaluating shared data platforms. Keywords: joint controller, Article 26, shared responsibility, arrangement, joint determination.
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。
Cloud service provider privacy assessment framework. Covers ISO 27018 cloud privacy controls, CSA STAR certification, SOC 2 Type II evaluation, shared responsibility model mapping, data residency verification, and cloud-specific privacy risk 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。
🇺🇸 Your dev team ships features nobody asked for while user-reported bugs pile up for months. Operations blames engineering for ignoring users; engineering blames operations for not understanding technical constraints. This gives you the complete Product × Engineering × Operations alignment SOP — from unified backlog to 10-day sprint cadence to veto power rules. What's inside: • Dual-layer Kanban system (master backlog + sprint board with unified tagging) • 10-day sprint standard process (Day 1 dev → Day 6 testable build → Day 10 ship) • Issue template with reproducibility requirements (3x reported = auto-severe) • Tri-party alignment meetings (daily standup / sprint planning / sprint review) • Operations veto power on releases (P0 bug = block shipping) • User feedback → product iteration closed loop (beta testing + interview SOP) • Core metrics framework (acquisition → activation → retention → monetization → referral) • Technical debt management (20-30% sprint capacity reserved) • Ready-to-use templates: Bug Report, Sprint Planning, Responsibility Matrix Built from: Real product strategy meetings + beta testing frameworks. References Supabase sprint model, Manus/DeepSeek commercialization alignment. By @WeiYipei. 🇨🇳 你的研发团队在做没人要的新功能，用户反馈的 Bug 堆了三个月没人动。运营觉得研发不听用户，研发觉得运营不懂技术。这份 SOP 给你从统一看板到 10 天迭代节奏到一票否决权的完整产研运协同框架。 🇯🇵 開発チームは誰も求めていない機能を作り、ユーザーから報告されたバグは何ヶ月も放置。このSOPは、統一バックログから10日スプリント、リリース拒否権まで、プロダクト×エンジニアリング×オペレーションの完全な連携フレームワークを提供します。 🇰🇷 개발팀은 아무도 요청하지 않은 기능을 만들고, 사용자가 보고한 버그는 몇 달째 방치됩니다. 이 SOP는 통합 백로그부터 10일 스프린트, 릴리스 거부권까지 제품×개발×운영 완전 협업 프레임워크를 제공합니다. Triggers: "product ops" | "engineering operations" | "product development SOP" | "sprint planning" | "iteration management" | "cross-functional alignment" | "product engineering ops" | "dev ops collaboration" | "产研运协同" | "迭代管理" | "产品研发运营" | "プロダクト開発運営" | "제품개발운영"
CQRS（Command Query Responsibility Segregation）における一貫性・可用性・スケーラビリティの トレードオフ分析と設計判断を支援する。CAP定理に基づくCQRSの評価軸、イベントソーシングとの 組み合わせによる影響、読み書きモデルの分離戦略を提供する。アーキテクチャ設計、技術選定、 既存システムのCQRS導入検討時に使用。 対象言語: 言語非依存（Java, Kotlin, Scala, TypeScript, Go, Rust, Python等すべて）。 トリガー：「CQRSを採用すべきか」「読み書き分離の設計」「結果整合性の判断」 「イベントソーシングを組み合わせるべきか」「CQRSのトレードオフ」「CQRSの可用性」 「CQRSのスケーラビリティ」「書き込みモデルと読み込みモデルの分離」 といったCQRS設計判断関連リクエストで起動。
Engineering ethics covering safety, professional codes of conduct, public welfare responsibility, whistleblowing, case studies (Challenger, Columbia, Hyatt Regency, Bhopal, Therac-25), and the ethical dimensions of design decisions. Includes the NSPE Code of Ethics, the iron ring tradition, risk communication, informed consent in engineering, and the duty to dissent. Use when analyzing ethical dimensions of engineering decisions, teaching professional responsibility, or reviewing designs for safety and public welfare.
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。
This rule enforces the single responsibility principle, ensuring functions are short and focused.
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。
Choose responsibility for substantial work before deep execution: keep one responsibility's coupled parts in a single lane, and hand a bounded or independent lane to a worker when clean context, an unknown cause, independent review, or coordinator attention materially improves the outcome.
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。
プロンプト要望を対話でヒアリングして prompt-brief.json を生成するとき、target_skill と responsibility_id の確定または skill 非紐付け (standalone) の汎用プロンプト要望を構造化するときに使う。
This skill outlines methodologies for performing authorized penetration testing against AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments. It covers understanding the shared responsibility model for testing scope, leveraging cloud-specific attack tools like Pacu and ScoutSuite, exploiting IAM misconfigurations, testing for SSRF to cloud metadata services, and reporting findings aligned to MITRE ATT&CK Cloud matrix.
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。
bu skill outlines methodologies for performing authorized penetration testing against AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments. It covers understanding the shared responsibility model for testing scope, leveraging cloud-specific attack tools like Pacu and ScoutSuite, exploiting IAM misconfigurations, testing for SSRF to cloud metadata services, and reporting Bul:ings aligned to MITRE ATT&CK Cloud matrix.
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。
This skill outlines methodologies for performing authorized penetration testing against AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments. It covers understanding the shared responsibility model for testing scope, leveraging cloud-specific attack tools like Pacu and ScoutSuite, exploiting IAM misconfigurations, testing for SSRF to cloud metadata services, and reporting findings aligned to MITRE ATT&CK Cloud matrix.
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。
Design a new Claude Code skill from a concrete use case and produce a repo-ready skill package. Use when the user asks to create a new skill, define a skill's responsibility, draft SKILL.md, choose frontmatter, design supporting files, or prepare eval criteria for a new skill. Also trigger on "スキルを作りたい", "スキルを作って", "スキルを追加して", "新しいスキル", "SKILL.md生成".
Generates Chain of Responsibility pattern for PHP 8.5. Creates handler chains for request processing with middleware-style composition. Includes unit tests.
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。
This skill outlines methodologies for performing authorized penetration testing against AWS, Azure, and GCP cloud environments. It covers understanding the shared responsibility model for testing scope, leveraging cloud-specific attack tools like Pacu and ScoutSuite, exploiting IAM misconfigurations, testing for SSRF to cloud metadata services, and reporting findings aligned to MITRE ATT&CK Cloud matrix.
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。
Delegate coding tasks to Aider (`aider`) only when the user explicitly requests it, while the orchestrator retains review and landing responsibility.
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。
Delegate coding tasks to the Google Antigravity CLI (`agy`) only when the user explicitly requests it, while the orchestrator retains review and landing responsibility.
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。
Python design patterns including KISS, Separation of Concerns, Single Responsibility, and composition over inheritance. Use this skill when designing a new service or component from scratch and choosing how to layer responsibilities, when refactoring a God class or monolithic function that has grown too large, when deciding whether to add a new abstraction or live with duplication, when evaluating a pull request for structural issues like tight coupling or leaking internal types, when choosing between inheritance and composition for a new class hierarchy, or when a codebase is becoming hard to test because of entangled I/O and business logic.
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。
Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation for scalable architectures. Use when separating read and write models, optimizing query performance, or building event-sourced systems.
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 recommendations for environmental sustainability, carbon footprint reduction, and energy efficiency based on the Sustainability pillar of the Google Cloud Well-Architected Framework (WAF). Use when the user asks to assess, design, or optimize Google Cloud workloads for sustainability—including the shared responsibility model, selecting low-carbon regions (CFE%), reducing resource and AI/ML energy waste, designing efficient software and storage lifecycles, or measuring and tracking emissions using Google Cloud Carbon Footprint. Don't use for financial cost reduction (use google-cloud-waf-cost-optimization), latency and throughput tuning (use google-cloud-waf-performance-optimization), or high availability and disaster recovery (use google-cloud-waf-reliability).
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。
Build alignment artifacts — responsibility matrices, decision rights, and communication plans. Use when unclear ownership stalls decisions. For persuading in the moment, use `design-negotiation` (designer-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。
Role profile — a reviewer who is fact-seeking, bedrock-seeking, honest, and rejecting. Demands that arguments rest on small facts that cannot be wrong (not on stacked assumptions dressed up as foundation), and that deliberately-unclear concepts be quarantined — never leaked into solid layers, never mixed with each other. Catches the failure mode where designs ship after partial grounding: most of the spec researched, the design feels finished, and the unresearched remainder holds the deal-breaker. Invoke with `/pedantic <target>` (e.g. `/pedantic review this design doc`, `/pedantic review the SDK design`, `/pedantic review this PR`). Probes cover logical structure (definitions, assumptions, boundaries, contradictions, unfalsifiability, vague quantifiers, counterexamples), epistemic honesty (researchable vs. discoverable-only-by-doing), bedrock integrity (assumed-bedrock, leaked uncertainty, mixed unclarity), and design pathology (YAGNI, wrong-layer abstraction, unclear responsibility, fragmentation, over-engineering). Use when you want a hard critique of a plan, design doc, technical doc, code change, or PR description — not a copy edit, not a vibe check.
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。