'assumptions' 검색 결과

Record durable project decisions with rationale, alternatives, assumptions, status, and revisit triggers. Load when the user says record this decision, we decided, decision log, why did we choose, revisit this later, or capture architectural/process rationale.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turn assumptions, funnel opportunities, and product questions into a prioritised, feasibility-checked experiment backlog. Filters by traffic reality, metric latency, and method feasibility — not just ICE/RICE scoring. Maintains a living portfolio with status (idea → designed → running → readout → archived). Load when the user says "what should we test next", "build an experiment backlog", "prioritise our tests", "where should we experiment", "what's worth testing", or when the experimentation orchestrator routes here.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Surface every assumption embedded in a plan, strategy, or document, assess how critical and how validated each one is, and identify which ones to test first. Load when the user asks to map assumptions, surface hidden beliefs, find what must be true for this to work, run an assumption audit, or when deep-thinking diagnoses an assumption frame. Also triggers on "what are we assuming", "what must be true for this to work", or "find the untested beliefs". Based on David Bland and Alex Osterwalder's assumption mapping method from Testing Business Ideas.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Strip a problem to its irreducible fundamental truths and rebuild the solution from the ground up — free from analogy, convention, and inherited assumptions. Load when the user feels constrained by how something has always been done, when existing solutions feel expensive or inefficient for no good reason, when the user asks to think from first principles, challenge the fundamentals, or rebuild this from scratch. Also triggers on "why does it have to work this way", "what are the actual constraints here", "ignore what everyone else does", or when deep-thinking diagnoses a convention-break frame. Based on Aristotle's first principles method, popularised by Musk and Feynman. Produces genuinely novel solutions by eliminating convention.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Pick the right business-model canvas (Lean Canvas, Business Model Canvas, or Value Proposition Canvas) for the stage and fill it with specifics — one segment, one primary canvas, top-3 assumptions, no fluff in the moat or channel boxes. Load when the user asks to fill a business model canvas, lean canvas, value proposition canvas, model this business, map the business model, says "fill the BMC", "make a Lean Canvas", "Value Proposition Canvas for this", "model this idea", "what's the business model", "design the business model". Sub-skill of `venture-exploration`. Hard-bans "everyone" segments, generic channels ("SEO/social/content/ads"), and "unfair advantage = AI/data/network effects" with no concrete asset. Does NOT score viability — for that use `idea-evaluation`.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Orchestrator for the experimentation skill suite — turn assumptions and product questions into rigorous, well-instrumented experiments and decision-grade readouts. Routes through backlog → spec → runbook → readout based on user need and existing artefacts. Platform-agnostic with PostHog as the primary binding. Load when the user asks to design an experiment, A/B test something, set up an experiment, run a holdout, test a hypothesis, decide what to test next, read out experiment results, analyse a test, or says "should we A/B test this", "experiment on the landing page", "is this lift real", "ship or kill this test", "what should we test next", "build an experiment backlog", "test the pricing page", "validate this with an experiment".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Controls error rates across thousands of simultaneous tests in genomics discovery using false-discovery-rate methods (Benjamini-Hochberg 1995; Benjamini-Yekutieli 2001 for arbitrary dependence; Storey q-value with pi0 estimation; local FDR; independent filtering Bourgon 2010; covariate-weighted FDR via IHW Ignatiadis 2016), plus family-wise error control (Bonferroni, Holm) and the GWAS genome-wide threshold. Covers the FDR-versus-FWER choice as the discovery-versus-confirmatory distinction, the dependence assumptions behind BH (PRDS) versus BY, pi0 estimation, the independent-filtering and false-coverage-rate traps, and reproducibility ranking via IDR (Li 2011). Use when correcting p-values from genome-wide tests, choosing between BH/BY/q-value/Bonferroni, setting an FDR threshold, applying IHW or independent filtering, or interpreting q-values. For confirmatory trials with few pre-specified endpoints (closed testing, graphical/gatekeeping), see clinical-biostatistics/multiplicity-graphical.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Estimate SNP heritability and partition it across functional annotations, cell types, and loci from GWAS summary statistics or individual-level genotypes. Implements LDSC, stratified LDSC with the baseline-LD model, Finucane 2018 cell-type prioritization, LDAK SumHer, HDL, HESS local heritability, BOLT-REML, GCTA-GREML, graphREML, and Popcorn cross-population genetic correlation. Use when computing total h2_SNP from summary stats, partitioning heritability across functional categories, prioritizing trait-relevant tissues or cell types from ENCODE/Roadmap chromatin marks, reconciling LDSC vs LDAK enrichment estimates, computing local heritability with HESS, estimating genetic correlation between traits, or producing publication-grade enrichment with calibrated sensitivity to model assumptions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Apply GPGP/TAEMS coordination as local-scheduler constraints under explicit task, view, commitment, and delivery assumptions. NOT for assuming global task visibility, reliable delivery, or modern execution authority.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Frame multi-agent designs through explicit environment, autonomy, information, coordination, commitment, incentive, and verification assumptions. NOT for endorsing multi-agent architecture without need or claiming runtime correctness from conceptual methods.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when validating product opportunities, mapping assumptions, planning discovery sprints, or testing problem-solution fit before committing delivery resources.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Technology-agnostic blueprint generator for creating comprehensive copilot-instructions.md files that guide GitHub Copilot to produce code consistent with project standards, architecture patterns, and exact technology versions by analyzing existing codebase patterns and avoiding assumptions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Analyze source data, tables, CSV/XLSX extracts, metrics, or experiment results with explicit data-authenticity checks. Use for profiling, cleaning assumptions, statistical summaries, segmentation, trend analysis, or "analyze this data"; do not use for spreadsheet file surgery, chart design only, database migrations, or claims without data provenance.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when selecting a statistical test with AI consultation, when assumptions need checking against the actual data, when an analysis plan or decision log must be written before running anything, or when results need APA-style reporting with effect sizes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Penetration test and red team report writing methodology. Covers executive summary structuring (risk-led narrative for non-technical readers), technical finding format (title, severity, affected scope, narrative, reproduction steps, impact, remediation, references), CVSS v3.1 / v4.0 scoring with vector justification, OWASP risk rating, evidence hygiene (redacting credentials, hashing client data, time-stamping every action), screenshot and PoC artifact management, finding chain narratives, scope/limitations/assumptions documentation, retest evidence and remediation tracking, deliverable formats (PDF, DOCX, HTML, JSON for SIEM ingestion), client-customer-deliverable separation, and common report mistakes (over-CVSSing, undermining the triager, missing the 'so what'). Use at the end of an engagement when authoring a deliverable, when restructuring a draft for executive readability, or when establishing a reusable report template for a consulting practice.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.