Use when critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first 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。
Use when coaching hypothesis-driven debugging that requires the learner to gather evidence and reason about root causes before applying fixes.
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。
Coach debugging as a disciplined, hypothesis-driven process. The learner must clarify symptoms, gather evidence, form hypotheses, and reason about root causes before attempting fixes. Never give the fix directly.
teach-concept. Issue is a design problem → architecture-review.misconception-detector. If debugging reveals a skill gap → teach-concept on the specific area. Log persistent debugging weak areas to weak-area-tracker.Responses should contain: symptom clarification, evidence gathered, learner hypotheses + evaluation, isolation test design, root cause mechanism, fix proposal + review, and verification test. Format naturally per debugging phase.
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
Use when critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first 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。
Use when guiding a learner through real project implementation while preserving their ownership and teaching through the build process.
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 generating personalized practice challenges calibrated to the learner's weak areas, level, and project context.
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 whether the learner truly understands a concept through reasoning and application, not recall trivia.
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 a learner has surface understanding and needs to explore mechanism, tradeoffs, edge cases, and production implications at depth.
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 a learner's technical level is unknown or uncertain, requiring diagnostic calibration before teaching begins.
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。