「reuse」の検索結果

既存コード・既存関数・既存モジュールの暗黙契約を抽出するスキル。 戻り値型、副作用、例外、前提条件、境界条件、環境依存挙動を確認し、 reuse前のリスクを可視化する。名前やコメントではなく実際の挙動から 契約を読み取り、不一致を分類し、再利用可否を判定する。 Use when reusing legacy code, verifying actual behavior of existing functions, or extracting implicit contracts before implementation. Covers: hidden contract, implicit contract, reuse risk, legacy behavior, 暗黙契約, 既存資産調査. Analyzes return types, side effects, exceptions, preconditions, boundary conditions, and environment-dependent behavior.

Only for explicit prior-work/reuse/history requests, not status checks. Finds and verifies existing work before new production when reuse is plausible. Use when the user explicitly references earlier work, existing code, history, or prior decisions, or says 以前做过, 已有代码, 别重复造轮子. Not for current tests, files, bug fixes, or mechanical verification. Produces a reuse/adapt/reject receipt; zero hits never prove absence.

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。

Plan adaptive reuse projects. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with adaptive-reuse-plan related 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。

Plan adaptive reuse projects. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with adaptive-reuse-plan related 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。

Review the current diff, or a PR number/branch/path target, for correctness bugs (plus reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups where the model's review recipe covers them) at the given effort level (low/medium: fewer, high-confidence findings; high→max: broader coverage, may include uncertain findings; ultra: deep multi-agent review in the cloud (requires claude.ai account access)); with no level given, it reuses the level you typed last. Pass --comment to post findings as inline PR comments, or --fix to apply the findings to the working tree after the review. For ultra on a GitHub.com PR target, --post asks to post the finished review’s findings to the PR as a single comment from the user’s GitHub account (not a review; the launch dialog still confirms in interactive sessions, while non-interactive mode posts on the flag alone) and --no-post hides that option.

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。

Compliance OS — meta-orchestrator that lets compliance teams CONFIGURE which frameworks apply, COMPUTE cross-framework control overlap, SIMULATE internal audits, and CONSOLIDATE evidence across multiple frameworks. Four decisions: (1) Given a company profile, which of the 12 supported frameworks apply (ISO 27001/13485/42001/14971, EU AI Act, MDR 745, GDPR, SOC 2, FDA QSR, NIST CSF 2.0, NIS2, HIPAA)? (2) Across selected frameworks, which controls overlap and how much evidence reuses? (3) For a given framework + scope, what does a realistic mock audit produce — drawing from the 205-scenario library? (4) Across selected frameworks, what's the unified evidence checklist with reuse map? Use when standing up a multi-framework program, planning the annual audit calendar, or preparing for certification stage 1. Does NOT replace per-framework skills (it orchestrates them).

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 reusable, composable n8n sub-workflows. Use when extracting shared logic, building anything multi-step or reused across workflows, or any workflow over ~10 nodes — and whenever the user mentions sub-workflows, Execute Workflow, reuse, shared/common logic, modular workflows, "Define Below" inputs, waitForSubWorkflow, mode each vs all, or exposing a workflow as an agent tool. Covers typed sub-workflow inputs, all-vs-each execution, verb-first naming for discovery, stateless vs stateful design, and splitting by input shape.

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。

Mandatory iPolloWork code-change gate for modern, minimal, performant, reuse-first implementation and clean repository ownership. Use whenever AI creates, edits, deletes, or refactors application code, server code, packages, scripts, tests, dependencies, schemas, routes, UI, or generated-file workflows. Reuse existing code before creating files, keep one source of truth, prevent parallel implementations and junk directories, justify every new file or dependency, and audit the current change before completion.

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 reusable, composable n8n sub-workflows. Use when extracting shared logic, building anything multi-step or reused across workflows, or any workflow over ~10 nodes — and whenever the user mentions sub-workflows, Execute Workflow, reuse, shared/common logic, modular workflows, "Define Below" inputs, waitForSubWorkflow, mode each vs all, or exposing a workflow as an agent tool. Covers typed sub-workflow inputs, all-vs-each execution, verb-first naming for discovery, stateless vs stateful design, and splitting by input shape.

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。

Review a git diff or explicit file scope for reuse, code quality, efficiency, clarity, and standards issues, then optionally apply safe Codex-driven fixes. Use when the user asks to "simplify code", "review changed code", "check for code reuse", "review code quality", "review efficiency", "simplify changes", "clean up code", "refactor changes", or "run simplify".

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 prompt-cache effectiveness for Claude Code usage from the Agent Monitor dashboard — cache hit rate (total_cache_read / (total_cache_read + total_input)), cache_write vs cache_read reuse, cache-read vs cache-write spend, and the sessions with the poorest reuse. Pulls token totals from /api/analytics, per-session detail from /api/sessions, and dollar splits from /api/pricing/cost. Use when diagnosing cache spend or deciding whether prompt caching is paying 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。

Audit cryptography implementation — algorithm choice, key sizes, KDF parameters, IV/nonce handling, signature verification, randomness, TLS configuration, and key rotation. Deeper than owasp-audit A02. Use when the user mentions 'crypto review,' 'cryptography audit,' 'encryption review,' 'KDF,' 'PBKDF2,' 'Argon2,' 'bcrypt cost,' 'IV reuse,' 'nonce reuse,' 'AES mode,' 'AES-GCM,' 'AES-ECB,' 'signature verification,' 'TLS configuration,' 'cipher suites,' 'key rotation,' 'libsodium,' 'BoringSSL,' or 'is this crypto right.'

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。

Run a multi-agent review of changed files for scope, reuse, quality, efficiency, clarity, and altitude issues followed by fixes. Use when the user asks to "simplify code", "review changed code", "check for code reuse", "review code quality", "review efficiency", "simplify changes", "clean up code", "refactor changes", or "run simplify".

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。

Make technology decisions for every product capability by discovering existing assets, evaluating vendor-aligned options, and categorizing as Reuse/Extend/Build/Buy/Integrate/Research during PRD v0.5 Red Team Review. Handles both greenfield and brownfield contexts. Triggers on "tech stack", "build or buy?", "what technologies?", "technical decisions", "what do we reuse?", "existing stack", "vendor constraint", "IBM-first", "what tools do we need?", "evaluate solutions", "select tech stack". Consumes FEA- (features), SCR- (screens), RISK- (constraints). Outputs TECH- entries with decisions, rationale, and cross-references. Feeds v0.6 Architecture Design.

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 before writing PlayCanvas behaviour from scratch, to reuse the scripts and helpers the installed Engine already ships.

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。

Expert-level water treatment covering drinking water treatment, wastewater treatment, industrial water systems, membrane processes, and water reuse.

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 verifying a story or ticket implementation against its spec and acceptance criteria - per-AC verdicts with file:line evidence and proving tests, code reuse and design conformance, dead code, stale docs, comment discipline. Finds the spec from an explicit path, the ticket key in the branch name, or plan files - and asks rather than guessing. For defect-hunting code review use dotnet-techne-code-review instead. Keywords: story QA, acceptance criteria, spec conformance, AC coverage, definition of done, dead code check, reuse check, comment check, verify story, QA this branch.

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。

Drafts answers to the questions in a received RFP, RFQ or tender from the organisation's past responses, answer library, case studies, policies and other documents provided: one row per buyer question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted or Missing, its source and date, and a legal or pricing review flag on every answer touching terms, liability, warranties, insurance, data protection or price. Use when the user asks to "draft our RFP response", "answer this tender from our past proposals", "pre-fill the bid questions", "first pass at the RFQ answers" or "reuse our previous bid content". Do not use for writing the buyer's own RFP or requirements, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for security or due diligence questionnaires use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill; for scoring received supplier responses use rfp-comparison-pack. 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。

Review a git diff or explicit file scope for reuse, code quality, efficiency, clarity, and standards issues, then optionally apply safe Codex-driven fixes. Use when the user asks to "simplify code", "review changed code", "check for code reuse", "review code quality", "review efficiency", "simplify changes", "clean up code", "refactor changes", or "run simplify".

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。

AES-GCM ve ChaCha20-Poly1305 nonce yeniden kullanımı saldırısı — GF(2^128) polinom kök bulma ile Hash Key kurtarma ve MAC sahteciliği.

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。

Elliptic Curve Cryptography saldırıları — ECDLP (Pollard rho/lambda, Pohlig-Hellman), Smart's attack, MOV/Frey-Rück, invalid curve, ECDSA nonce reuse, biased nonce lattice

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。

既存デザインシステムコンポーネント（Button / Input / Modal / Card 等）を再実装していないかを検出する。Figma→コード実装時に既存コンポーネントを無視した実装を防ぐ。

Review a local diff or PR for unnecessary durable surface: new files, public types, interface methods, DTOs/view models, helpers, routes, DI registrations, services, repositories, and dependencies that should reuse existing owners instead.

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。