'judgment' 검색 결과

Cycle-end retrospective converting recurring judgment failures into durable enforcement. Reviews the cycle's friction — repeated user corrections, guard trips, RCA themes, integrate failures — and turns each recurring one into a landmines.md entry, then proposes graduation candidates up the enforcement funnel (landmine → advisory hook → hard gate). Pairs with standup: standup says what shipped and what's next; retrospective says what kept going wrong and how to stop it structurally. Writes only memory entries and a report — graduation proposals are advisory and require the normal seed.md amendment path to become enforcement. Invoke at the end of a release cycle, an epic, or any stretch of work with repeated friction.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turns past decisions into calibrated judgment - scoring old predictions against what happened, assigning credit for delayed results, and separating a bad decision from a good decision that lost. Use during a retrospective, postmortem, quarterly or monthly review, when reviewing decisions taken 30+ days ago, when attributing a result to a cause, or when someone claims to have called something.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when classifying data, setting retention, judging cross-border transfer, or shaping DSR workflow. Triggers on 'how long do we keep this', 'can this data go to the US'.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Build AI-powered software with TypeSafe: small units of AI intelligence you can use like programming primitives. Its System One models, including Jev, turn natural language and application state into typed judgments and probabilities that code can combine. Use when a feature needs programmable common sense, when brainstorming what AI could make possible in an app, or when an LLM prompt-and-parse step could become a structured decision. Applications include routing, ranking, extraction, verification, and interactive experiences; these are starting points, not the limits. Read live docs and cookbooks to find useful patterns and discover new combinations.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Write what the work found into the project's knowledge record, so the next session inherits it instead of re-deriving it. Use the moment something worth keeping exists: a fact taken from a source, a rule worked out, a decision or conclusion, a measurement, a correction to a recorded value, or a question left open - and check for unrecorded findings before implementation, handoff (including a PR), or finishing work. Record within the user's write authorization. The first write creates GROUNDING.yaml. Covers one-report update, add, set, review, same and distinct, judgments with a falsifier, and background capture.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

[Code Quality] Use when a workflow step or the user asks for rationale evaluation or critical judgment of a decision, claim or statement: necessity, options, trade-offs. --validate-findings checks findings; --fix-loop fixes. Diffs: changes-review.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Find, build, evaluate, and improve systems using decision models. Use for bounded classification, routing, ranking, Choice/Score/Noul, decision-model composition, evaluation harnesses, prompt/program hill climbing, and Software 3.0 workflows across software, business, organizations, and life. Separate models, code, and human judgment. TypeSafe Jev is the default hosted exemplar. Not for straightforward arithmetic, prose rewriting, or provider setup alone.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Clarify ambiguous or conflicting requests by researching first, then asking only judgment calls. Use when prompts say "grill me", ask hard questions, request relentless interrogation, pressure-test assumptions, clarify scope/requirements, define success criteria, or request system-design/optimization decisions before implementation; stop before implementation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when drafting, reviewing, or revising Xiaohongshu/Douyin/social-platform Chinese text so it has real internet-native judgment instead of README tone, technical-briefing tone, or mechanical meme-word stuffing.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when splitting content work between a raw drafting model/window, an editor-in-chief, and the user's final taste review. It keeps prompts loose enough for judgment while preserving facts, account boundaries, and publish gates.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use this skill when someone wants to contribute, submit or publish a GRC skill to the grcskills library (github.com/better-isms/grcskills, grcskills.com), or update a skill or author profile they already published there. Interviews the contributor for practitioner judgment, drafts the files in the library format, runs the validator and opens one pull request.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Process the batch of incoming Bridge Classroom feedback. Pull open `classroom-feedback` issues from the PBS repo, cluster them by defect class, verify each against the actual board, and fix at the right altitude — patch a single board, or (when a class recurs) build a gate, sweep the whole corpus, and regenerate/drop collectively. Engine bugs route to the Classroom repo; bridge-judgment calls go to Rick. Nothing leaves the machine without David's OK. Invoke as `/issue` (optionally with an issue number or scenario to restrict the run).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

設計系スキルの入口。「AIっぽい」「テンプレート感」「もっと洗練させたい」「管理画面のレビュー」など画面設計の相談を受けたら、業務構造の診断(ux-design §0-1〜§13-1)と見た目の素材(jp-web-design)のどれをいつ読むかをここで決める。UIの新規設計・リニューアル・レビューの着手時に必ず最初に開く。

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Validate logical consistency of decisions and claims through context forking. Use proactively when judgment validity is unclear, but prefer direct tools (Read, Bash) for simple verifications like file contents or test results.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Run a support investigation as a suggest-and-interpret loop, never executing anything yourself — orient to the product's support pack and follow the signal with judgment. Use when someone asks for help triaging, investigating, or resolving an operational or support issue on a deployment. Not for feature-development cards (see investigate-and-fix and implement-this).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Checks whether AI-assisted work defines review criteria, accessible context, explicit review loop, human judgment boundary, and feedback capture before delegating to an agent.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Delegate real-world tasks to human workers via the OpenHumancy API. Use when the user needs physical actions (field verification, photography, deliveries, mystery shopping), human judgment, or any task that requires a person. Manages the full lifecycle — worker search, task creation, chat, payments on the TON blockchain.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Rank multiple design solutions and explain why. Separate personal preference from quality judgment. Use when comparing design options, evaluating competing approaches, or making design decisions with clear reasoning.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Help other designers develop judgment without imposing your style. Use when mentoring designers, running design education, or building team-wide quality standards.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Experimental workflow for summarizing work that still needs human judgment across configured pull requests, issues, feedback, errors, and delivery signals. Use for a human decision queue or bounded review.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user provides multiple options and wants a specific 16-minds (MBTI) personality to make the decision in that personality's judgment style. Triggers on Japanese phrases like 「ENTJで決めて」「INFPならどっち選ぶ」「INTJとして判断して」, English equivalents like "decide as ESTJ" / "which would ENFP pick", or 16-minds commands with a `--decide` flag. Requires both a personality and 2+ options to be present or extractable from the request.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user wants all 16 personality types (16-minds plugin) to vote on a proposal — yes/no/abstain — to see stakeholder distribution, detect hidden objections, or simulate organizational consensus. Triggers on Japanese phrases like 「全人格で投票」「16人格に賛否を聞いて」「ステークホルダーシミュ」「これ通せそう？」, English equivalents like "vote with all 16 minds" / "stakeholder simulation", or `--vote` flag on 16-minds commands. Different from /minds (which is for opinion divergence) — this is for binary judgment aggregation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when user has ADHD or attention differences — tracks current task, catches conversation drift, and nudges back on topic without judgment or guilt.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Legal casebase App-in-Skill (Busabase-backed) intake and anonymization QA desk for law-firm judgment and award documents. Use when the user invokes $kelly-legal-casebase-ingest, mentions internal case database, 智能案例库, 裁判文书入库, 脱敏, 结构化, 分类标注, 案例审核, 质量验收, or wants a Busabase-backed desk where reviewers approve, revise, or block agent-prepared case records before they become searchable knowledge assets.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.