'search evaluation' 검색 결과

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Investigate model specifications, requirements, and evaluation strategy. Use when researching a model before benchmarking: reading HuggingFace model cards, estimating VRAM requirements, selecting GPU providers, and determining evaluation approach. Triggers on "model research", "investigate model", "model info", "VRAM estimate", "which provider", "model card".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turn academic papers into structured reviews that explain findings, strengths, weaknesses, and research methods. Assess originality and supporting evidence, compare relevant literature, and provide specific improvement suggestions in a detailed review or brief summary.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Understanding a paper's findings and limitations
• Preparing a draft peer review
• Checking experimental design and reproducibility

Review papers, drafts, and research ideas with evidence-linked feedback focused on improvement. Audit low-stakes assessment rubrics, trace supporting evidence, and check rater agreement and uncertainty without ranking people or recommending consequential decisions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Prepare evidence-linked feedback on a paper draft
• Review strengths and limitations of a research idea
• Check assessment criteria and evidence traceability

Evaluate LLM application quality using automated scores, human reviews, and another language model as a judge. Compare models or prompts, establish baseline results, and detect quality drops through repeatable tests and statistical comparisons.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Comparing models and prompts
• Checking quality before deployment
• Evaluating search quality in RAG applications

Audit research experiments before using their results to support claims. An independent model checks reference data, metric calculations, result files, and evaluation scope, producing reports with evidence, findings, and specific actions to address concerns.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Verify the source of reference data
• Check score normalization and metric calculations
• Match paper claims against saved results

Build AI workflows with DSPy by defining inputs and outputs and combining reusable components. Create question answering systems that use retrieved documents, tool-using agents, and automatically optimized prompts, then compare results with evaluation data.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Build question answering systems that use retrieved documents
• Optimize prompts using examples and evaluation metrics
• Combine AI tasks into reusable processing stages

Use LangSmith to record LLM application inputs, outputs, and timing, investigate failures, evaluate answers against test datasets, and monitor production usage. It also guides automated quality checks and analysis of token usage and costs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Investigating failures in LLM applications
• Evaluating answers against test datasets
• Monitoring production latency and costs

Generates complete conventional non-oncology diagnostic machine-learning research designs from a user-provided disease context, optional mechanism theme, and validation direction. Use when a study centers on disease-vs-control transcriptome comparison, optional mechanism-gene restriction, feature shrinkage, diagnostic model construction, ROC / calibration / DCA evaluation, interpretation layers, and orthogonal validation. Covers five study patterns and always outputs Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, figure plan, validation hierarchy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and strictly verified literature retrieval.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Generates complete conventional oncology bulk-transcriptome biomarker and hub-gene research designs from a user-provided cancer type and study direction. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, plan, or build a tumor bioinformatics study centered on differential expression, prognostic filtering or risk modeling, PPI-based hub-gene prioritization, diagnostic/prognostic evaluation, clinical association, immune infiltration context, methylation context, and optional tissue or cell validation. Covers five study patterns (signature-first prognostic workflow, hub-gene-first biomarker workflow, hybrid signature-to-hub workflow, immune-context biomarker workflow, translational validation workflow) and always outputs four workload configs (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with recommended primary plan, step-by-step workflow, figure plan, validation strategy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path...

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Generates complete conventional non-oncology bioinformatics research designs from a user-provided disease context, process-related gene family or biological theme, and validation direction. Use when a study centers on multi-dataset bulk transcriptome integration, DEG analysis, process-gene intersection, enrichment analysis, GSEA, PPI hub-gene prioritization, TF/miRNA regulatory networks, ROC-based biomarker evaluation, and immune infiltration analysis. Covers five study patterns (process-DEG discovery, enrichment/GSEA interpretation, hub-gene prioritization, regulatory-network and immune interpretation, multi-layer public validation) and always outputs Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+ with a recommended primary plan, stepwise workflow, figure plan, validation hierarchy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and strictly verified literature retrieval.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Generates complete dual-disease shared-transcriptome biomarker and hub-gene research designs from a user-provided disease pair and shared-biology direction. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to design, plan, or build a non-oncology two-disease transcriptome study centered on per-disease differential expression, shared-signal intersection or concordance, PPI-based hub-gene prioritization, diagnostic evaluation across both diseases, immune infiltration context, pathway interpretation, and optional orthogonal validation. Covers five study patterns (shared-DEG-first workflow, hub-gene-first shared-biomarker workflow, hybrid shared-biomarker compression workflow, immune-context shared-biomarker workflow, orthogonal validation workflow) and always outputs four workload configs (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with recommended primary plan, step-by-step workflow, figure plan, validation strategy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path...

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Think and work like an expert Computer Architecture Researcher. Use when a task calls for Computer Architecture Researcher judgment. Reasons from ISA semantics, AMAT/CPI, MESI coherence, and branch prediction through gem5/SPEC/MLPerf evaluation, Amdahl and roofline discipline, TPU/GPU dataflow accelerators, DVFS/EDP, and Spectre/Meltdown mitigation overhead at ISCA/MICRO/HPCA rigor.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Think and work like an expert Computer Graphics Researcher. Use when a task calls for Computer Graphics Researcher judgment. Reasons from the rendering equation, Monte Carlo bias/variance, sampling theory, and BSDF energy conservation through pbrt-v4/Mitsuba 3 references, MIS/ReSTIR/path guiding, DXR 1.2 real-time stacks, 3DGS and NerfBaselines protocols, FLIP/ColorVideoVDP evaluation, OpenUSD/MaterialX/OpenPBR interchange, and ACES 2/OCIO color while treating unconverged references, unequal-time comparisons, denoiser and temporal-reuse bias, scene- vs display-referred color errors, and white-furnace energy failures as first-class failure modes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

产品设计 / UX 设计 (产品设计 / UX 设计 (Product Design / UX Design) — 数字产品的用户体验设计：从用户研究 → 信息架构 → 交互设计 → 视觉/UI → 可用性测试 → 设计系统的认知操作系统，面向 UX designer / product designer / interaction designer / UX researcher / design systems engineer / design lead，以及想入行、转岗、服务这行(设计外包、设计工具厂商、研究平台)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — **用户中心/研究驱动 (user-centered, 'you are not the user', research before pixels, observe behavior not opinions) ⇄ 商业目标/约束/交付 (business goals, north-star metrics, ship it, designer 服务于产品成功不是个人作品集)**; **设计直觉/品味/craft (taste, aesthetics, 'attractive things work better' — Norman 情感化设计) ⇄ 数据/实验/A-B 测试 (data-driven, metrics, experimentation, 'opinions are not data')**; **用户说的 (stated preference, 访谈里说喜欢) ⇄ 用户做的 (revealed behavior, 行为观察 > 自陈, usability test 看人真实卡在哪)**; **一致性/设计系统/规范 (consistency, design system, Jakob's law 用户带着别处的习惯来, 复用组件) ⇄ 创新/打破模式 (innovation, 该不该破规范)**; **减法/简化 (simplicity, Krug 'Don't Make Me Think', less but better — Dieter Rams) ⇄ 功能丰富/利益相关者塞需求 (feature creep, stakeholder pressure)**; **UX(体验/流程/研究) ⇄ UI(视觉/像素/组件)** 的职责之争, **designer 该不该写代码 (design engineer / 'should designers code')**; (b) 核心工作流 / pipeline (最标准、最易蒸高质量+CLI 化) — Double Diamond (发现 discover → 定义 define → 开发 develop → 交付 deliver) / Design Thinking (共情 empathize → 定义 → 构思 ideate → 原型 prototype → 测试 test) / Design Sprint (Jake Knapp 5 天冲刺); 完整链: 用户研究 (访谈/问卷/可用性测试/卡片分类) → persona / journey map / JTBD → 信息架构 IA + 用户流 user flow → 线框 wireframe (低保真) → 交互/原型 prototype (高保真) → 视觉 UI / 设计系统落地 → 可用性测试 usability testing → handoff 给开发 → 度量迭代 (北极星 / HEART 框架); (c) 工具栈 — 设计/原型 (Figma 绝对主导 / Sketch 衰退 / Adobe XD 已停更 / Framer 高保真+建站 / Penpot 开源 / Principle / ProtoPie 微交互); 协作白板 (FigJam / Miro / Mural); 用户研究 (Maze / UserTesting / Lookback / Dovetail 研究库 / Optimal Workshop 卡片分类树测试 / Hotjar / Microsoft Clarity 热图); 设计系统/交付 (Storybook / 蓝湖(中) / Zeplin / design tokens / Tokens Studio); 度量 (Amplitude / Mixpanel / 北极星指标); AI 新兴 (Figma AI / v0 by Vercel / Galileo AI / Uizard / Cursor 给 design engineer); (d) 知识正典 — Don Norman《The Design of Everyday Things》(affordance/signifier/mapping 圣经)、Steve Krug《Don't Make Me Think》(可用性入门)、Alan Cooper《About Face》《The Inmates Are Running the Asylum》(交互设计/persona 起源)、Jakob Nielsen 10 Usability Heuristics + NN/g 文章库、Jake Knapp《Sprint》、Jeff Gothelf《Lean UX》、Teresa Torres《Continuous Discovery Habits》、Erika Hall《Just Enough Research》、Julie Zhuo《The Making of a Manager》、《Refactoring UI》(Adam Wathan/Steve Schoger)、《Universal Principles of Design》、Laws of UX (Jon Yablonski)、《100 Things Every Designer Needs to Know About People》(Susan Weinschenk)、IDEO/Stanford d.school 设计思维材料; (e) figures/流派 — 认知心理/人因派 (Don Norman 认知科学奠基、Susan Weinschenk 行为心理、Kathryn Whitenton); 可用性工程派 (Jakob Nielsen 启发式/折扣可用性、Steve Krug、Jared Spool UIE); 交互设计/目标导向派 (Alan Cooper goal-directed/persona、Kim Goodwin); 设计思维派 (IDEO Tim Brown、David Kelley d.school); 精益/持续探索派 (Jeff Gothelf Lean UX、Teresa Torres continuous discovery、Marty Cagan《Inspired》产品发现); 设计系统/系统化派 (Brad Frost Atomic Design、Nathan Curtis design tokens、Alla Kholmatova); 视觉/UI craft 派 (Adam Wathan & Steve Schoger Refactoring UI、Dieter Rams 'less but better' 工业设计遗产); 设计领导/职业派 (Julie Zhuo、Aarron Walter 情感化设计、John Maeda); 移动优先 (Luke Wroblewski 'Mobile First'); (f) 行业话术/黑话 — affordance 可供性 / signifier 意符 / mental model 心智模型 / IA 信息架构 / heuristic evaluation 启发式评估 / usability 可用性 / a11y accessibility 无障碍 / WCAG / persona 用户画像 / journey map 用户旅程 / JTBD jobs-to-be-done / north-star metric 北极星 / HEART 框架 / wireframe 线框 / mockup / prototype 原型 / fidelity 保真度 (lo-fi/hi-fi) / design system 设计系统 / design token 设计令牌 / atomic design 原子设计 / component library 组件库 / handoff 交付 / red routes 关键路径 / dark pattern 暗黑模式 / Fitts's law / Hick's law / Jakob's law / Miller 7±2 / progressive disclosure 渐进披露 / above the fold / hamburger menu / skeuomorphism vs flat / micro-interaction / empty state / edge case / happy path / design debt 设计债 / dogfooding / dot voting / affinity mapping 亲和图 / card sorting 卡片分类 / tree testing / A/B test / NPS / SUS (System Usability Scale); (

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Research technical solutions, analyze architectures, gather requirements thoroughly. Use for technology evaluation, best practices research, solution design, scalability/security/maintainability analysis.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Marketing analytics and data-driven optimization for B2B SaaS campaigns. Use this skill when analyzing marketing performance, optimizing conversion rates, running A/B tests, conducting customer research, creating marketing dashboards, building attribution models, analyzing funnel metrics, or storytelling with data. Also triggers on: marketing ops, performance analytics, CRO, A/B testing, data storytelling, customer insights, tracking plan, event taxonomy, UTM taxonomy, GA4 audit, consent mode, instrumentation contract, sample size calculation, minimum detectable effect, test duration, not enough traffic to A/B test, statistical significance, Bayesian vs frequentist, sample ratio mismatch, experiment feasibility, martech stack, marketing tech stack audit, tool consolidation, build vs buy, vendor evaluation, shadow IT tools, ESP/CRM/platform migration, switching cost, cutover plan, suppression list migration, data portability, customer interviews, survey design, sampling frame, non-response bias, how many people should I interview, thematic saturation, voice of customer, jobs-to-be-done, buyer persona research, is this finding real, data enrichment, which enrichment provider should we buy, waterfall enrichment, contact data quality, match rate, our list data is bad, email verification, catch-all domain, accept-all, bounce rate from bad data, B2B data decay, how often should we re-verify contacts, ZoomInfo vs Apollo vs Clearbit evaluation, cost per usable record, where did this list come from, GDPR Article 14 notice, purchased list compliance, suppression screening, TAM list building, demand planning, marketing plan, how many leads do we need, what pipeline target should marketing carry, funnel model, top-down vs bottom-up plan, plan of record, annual marketing planning, quarterly planning, pipeline coverage we have to create, sales cycle lag, our leads cannot close this quarter, carry-in pipeline, scenario planning, conservative moderate aggressive forecast, stretch target, reforecast, re-forecast triggers, assumption register, capacity ceiling, addressable audience ceiling, marginal cost per lead, blended CPL is wrong, we missed plan and nobody knows why, AI policy for the marketing team, AI governance, AI acceptable use policy, which AI tools are we allowed to use, can I paste customer data into ChatGPT, shadow AI, AI use register, human review of AI output, when can we stop reviewing every AI draft, can the agent send on its own, the AI made a mistake now what, pull back AI autonomy, AI evals, our AI vendor changed the model, AI output went out wrong, prompt injection, can our AI read prospect replies safely, lethal trifecta, the AI leaked internal notes, turn off auto-generated ad assets, auto-applied recommendations, AI literacy training, EU AI Act Article 4, duplicate records in the CRM, dedupe before import, which value wins in a merge, CRM cleanup.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Produces an attorney-ready memo from a corpus of legal documents supplied by the user. Use when a user shows up with a folder, zip, or vault of case documents and asks for a case summary, case evaluation, litigation package, intake memo, matter overview, or "can you summarize this case for me." The skill ingests the corpus into a searchable index, OCRs anything non-searchable, inventories and diagnoses the practice area, loads the appropriate practice-area playbook module(s) (PI/tort, commercial litigation, IP infringement, or user-authored extensions), iteratively searches the corpus across eight core dimensions plus any module-specific dimensions, defers specialized document clusters (depositions, medical records, discovery, liens) to dedicated sibling skills, and synthesizes a cited memo.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Autonomous experiment loop that optimizes any file by a measurable metric. Inspired by Karpathy's autoresearch. The agent edits a target file, runs a fixed evaluation, keeps improvements (git commit), discards failures (git reset), and loops indefinitely. Use when: user wants to optimize code speed, reduce bundle/image size, improve test pass rate, optimize prompts, improve content quality (headlines, copy, CTR), or run any measurable improvement loop. Requires: a target file, an evaluation command that outputs a metric, and a git repo.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Autonomous experiment loop that optimizes any file by a measurable metric. Inspired by Karpathy's autoresearch. The agent edits a target file, runs a fixed evaluation, keeps improvements (git commit), discards failures (git reset), and loops indefinitely. Use when: user wants to optimize code speed, reduce bundle/image size, improve test pass rate, optimize prompts, improve content quality (headlines, copy, CTR), or run any measurable improvement loop. Requires: a target file, an evaluation command that outputs a metric, and a git repo

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Standard Operating Procedures for read-only codebase exploration, symbol search, dependency mapping, code tracing, code review, architecture analysis, technical research, source evaluation, and evidence-based reporting.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Marketing analytics and data-driven optimization for B2B SaaS campaigns. Use this skill when analyzing marketing performance, optimizing conversion rates, running A/B tests, conducting customer research, creating marketing dashboards, building attribution models, analyzing funnel metrics, or storytelling with data. Also triggers on: marketing ops, performance analytics, CRO, A/B testing, data storytelling, customer insights, tracking plan, event taxonomy, UTM taxonomy, GA4 audit, consent mode, instrumentation contract, sample size calculation, minimum detectable effect, test duration, not enough traffic to A/B test, statistical significance, Bayesian vs frequentist, sample ratio mismatch, experiment feasibility, martech stack, marketing tech stack audit, tool consolidation, build vs buy, vendor evaluation, shadow IT tools, ESP/CRM/platform migration, switching cost, cutover plan, suppression list migration, data portability, customer interviews, survey design, sampling frame, non-response bias, how many people should I interview, thematic saturation, voice of customer, jobs-to-be-done, buyer persona research, is this finding real, data enrichment, which enrichment provider should we buy, waterfall enrichment, contact data quality, match rate, our list data is bad, email verification, catch-all domain, accept-all, bounce rate from bad data, B2B data decay, how often should we re-verify contacts, ZoomInfo vs Apollo vs Clearbit evaluation, cost per usable record, where did this list come from, GDPR Article 14 notice, purchased list compliance, suppression screening, TAM list building, demand planning, marketing plan, how many leads do we need, what pipeline target should marketing carry, funnel model, top-down vs bottom-up plan, plan of record, annual marketing planning, quarterly planning, pipeline coverage we have to create, sales cycle lag, our leads cannot close this quarter, carry-in pipeline, scenario planning, conservative moderate aggressive forecast, stretch target, reforecast, re-forecast triggers, assumption register, capacity ceiling, addressable audience ceiling, marginal cost per lead, blended CPL is wrong, we missed plan and nobody knows why.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

DSPy로 질문 응답과 문서 검색을 결합한 AI 처리를 만듭니다. 입출력을 정의한 구성 요소를 조합하고 학습 예시와 평가 지표로 프롬프트를 자동 조정합니다.

• 문서 검색을 결합한 질문 응답 만들기
• 학습 예시로 프롬프트 조정하기
• 텍스트에서 구조화된 데이터 추출하기