Route gh-aw workflow design/create/debug/upgrade requests to the right prompts.
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 complex Blazor UI features by decomposing them into focused components. USE FOR: building a complex Blazor page with multiple sections, planning component decomposition, designing a multi-section dashboard or layout, breaking down a large UI feature into composable components, pages with sidebars and content panels, any page with 3+ distinct visual sections or multiple interacting sub-features, identifying parent-child relationships and data flow. DO NOT USE FOR: creating new Blazor projects or apps from scratch (use create-blazor-project), implementing a single individual component (use author-component), writing component code with parameters and EventCallback (use author-component), or simple single-component pages.
インストール方法を見るインストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
When asked to build a complex UI feature, plan the component decomposition first, then immediately implement it. A single monolithic page component is almost never the right answer — break the UI into focused, composable components.
Read the request and identify every distinct visual region. Each region that has its own data, behavior, or layout responsibility is a candidate component.
Draw the component tree:
InventoryDashboard (page — owns data, orchestrates layout)
├── StockSummaryBar (read-only stats: total items, low-stock count, value)
├── InventoryFilters (search box, category dropdown, stock-level toggle)
├── InventoryTable (sortable table of products)
│ └── InventoryRow (single product row with inline edit/delete)
└── AddProductForm (slide-out form for new products)
Rules for identifying components:
For every component in the tree, determine:
| Component | Action | Render Mode | State Owned | Lines (est.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InventoryDashboard | Create | InteractiveServer | product list, filter state | ~80 |
| StockSummaryBar | Create | (inherits) | none — receives data | ~30 |
| InventoryFilters | Create | (inherits) | search text, selected category | ~60 |
| InventoryTable | Create | (inherits) | sort column, sort direction | ~50 |
| InventoryRow | Create | (inherits) | inline-edit mode flag | ~60 |
| AddProductForm | Create | (inherits) | form model | ~80 |
A page component that exceeds ~200 lines of combined markup + code is too large. If your estimate puts a single component above that, split further.
Identify the state owner for each piece of data, then map how it flows:
InventoryDashboard (owns: products[], filters)
│
├─ [Parameter] products ──→ StockSummaryBar (reads aggregate stats)
│
├─ [Parameter] filters ──→ InventoryFilters
│ └─ EventCallback<Filters> OnFiltersChanged ──→ InventoryDashboard
│
├─ [Parameter] filteredProducts ──→ InventoryTable
│ └─ [Parameter] product ──→ InventoryRow
│ ├─ EventCallback<Product> OnSave ──→ InventoryTable ──→ InventoryDashboard
│ └─ EventCallback<Product> OnDelete ──→ InventoryTable ──→ InventoryDashboard
│
└─ EventCallback<Product> OnProductAdded ←── AddProductForm
Rules:
[Parameter]EventCallback<T>Before creating a new component, check if an existing component in the project can serve the purpose. Look for:
DataTable<T>, Pagination) that accept templatesIf a component will be used in more than one page, place it in a Shared/ or Components/ folder.
Build bottom-up — leaf components first, then parents that compose them:
Each component should be independently compilable. Never reference a component that doesn't exist yet.
Present the plan briefly, then immediately proceed to implement — never stop at just the plan or ask for confirmation before writing code. The plan is a thinking tool, not a deliverable.
## Component Plan: [Feature Name]
### Component Tree
[ASCII tree showing parent-child relationships]
### Component Table
| Component | Action | Render Mode | Purpose | Est. Lines |
|-----------|--------|-------------|---------|------------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Data Flow
[State owner] → [Parameters down] → [EventCallbacks up]
### Implementation Order
1. [First file to create — why]
2. [Second file — why]
...
After outputting the plan, immediately begin implementing the components in the order listed. Do not wait for approval or ask "shall I proceed?" — the plan is a guide for you to follow, not a proposal for the user to approve.
| Anti-Pattern | Why It's Wrong | Correct Approach |
|---|---|---|
| One page component with 500+ lines | Impossible to test, reuse, or maintain | Decompose into focused components |
| Passing 10+ parameters through intermediate components | Parameter drilling obscures intent | Use cascading values or a scoped state service |
| Child component fetching its own data from an API | Multiple components making redundant calls | Parent owns data, passes via parameters |
| Inline rendering of list items with complex markup | Duplicated logic, no reuse, hard to test | Extract item template into its own component |
| Building everything in one file then "refactoring later" | Refactoring rarely happens; the monolith ships | Plan the decomposition upfront |
| Generic components for one-off usage | Over-engineering adds complexity | Only extract generics when reuse is proven |
.razor files — never stop at just the plan.ProductCard not ProductRenderer, OrderFilters not FilterHandler.まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Route gh-aw workflow design/create/debug/upgrade requests to the right prompts.
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 a repo-root `.editorconfig` to configure free .NET analyzer and style rules. Use when a .NET repo needs rule severity, code-style options, section layout, or analyzer ownership made explicit. USE FOR: the repo needs a root .editorconfig; analyzer severity and style ownership are unclear; the team wants one source of truth for rule configuration. DO NOT USE FOR: choosing analyzers with no config change; formatting-only execution with no config ownership question. INVOKES: inspect the repository context, edit targeted files, and run relevant build, test, lint, or validation commands when changes are made.
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。
Scans .NET code for ~50 performance anti-patterns across async, memory, strings, collections, LINQ, regex, serialization, and I/O with tiered severity classification. Use when analyzing .NET code for optimization opportunities, reviewing hot paths, or auditing allocation-heavy patterns.
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。
Symbolicate the .NET runtime frames in an Android tombstone file. Extracts BuildIds and PC offsets from the native backtrace, downloads debug symbols from the Microsoft symbol server, and runs llvm-symbolizer to produce function names with source file and line numbers. USE FOR triaging a .NET MAUI or Mono Android app crash from a tombstone, resolving native backtrace frames in libmonosgen-2.0.so or libcoreclr.so to .NET runtime source code, or investigating SIGABRT, SIGSEGV, or other native signals originating from the .NET runtime on Android. DO NOT USE FOR pure Java/Kotlin crashes, managed .NET exceptions that are already captured in logcat, or iOS crash logs. INVOKES Symbolicate-Tombstone.ps1 script, llvm-symbolizer, Microsoft symbol server.
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。
Symbolicate .NET runtime frames in Apple platform .ips crash logs (iOS, tvOS, Mac Catalyst, macOS). Extracts UUIDs and addresses from the native backtrace, locates dSYM debug symbols, and runs atos to produce function names with source file and line numbers. Automatically downloads .dwarf symbols from the Microsoft symbol server using Mach-O UUIDs. USE FOR triaging a .NET MAUI or Mono app crash from an .ips file on any Apple platform, resolving native backtrace frames in libcoreclr or libmonosgen-2.0 to .NET runtime source code, retrieving .ips crash logs from a connected iOS device or iPhone, or investigating EXC_CRASH, EXC_BAD_ACCESS, SIGABRT, or SIGSEGV originating from the .NET runtime. DO NOT USE FOR pure Swift/Objective-C crashes with no .NET components, or Android tombstone files. INVOKES Symbolicate-Crash.ps1 script, atos, dwarfdump, idevicecrashreport.
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 or review .NET solution architecture across modular monoliths, clean architecture, vertical slices, microservices, DDD, CQRS, and cloud-native boundaries without over-engineering. USE FOR: .NET architecture choices; layer and domain boundary review; service decomposition; clean architecture, vertical slice, DDD, CQRS, and modular monolith decisions. DO NOT USE FOR: unrelated stacks; generic tasks that do not need this specific guidance. INVOKES: inspect the repository context, edit targeted files, and run relevant build, test, lint, or validation commands when changes are made.
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。