'argument' 검색 결과

Guides authorized OS command injection testing by defining scope, alternative investigation paths, and evidence requirements. Helps agents document direct, blind, and argument injection findings and report inconclusive results without overstating what the evidence proves.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Defining the scope of command injection testing
• Reviewing investigation paths when responses are absent
• Organizing reproduction evidence and execution privileges

Diagnose and fix Claude Code plugin hook failures on Windows. Covers conflicts between WSL and Git Bash, path handling problems, and errors involving .sh arguments, using error messages and configuration files.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Diagnosing SessionStart or Stop hook errors
• Investigating cannot execute binary file errors
• Troubleshooting WSL and Git Bash conflicts

Confirms what a third-party library, remote API, build backend, or scraped document actually does before writing code that depends on it — throwaway probes that run in seconds, permissive clients that forward wrong arguments instead of rejecting them, per-endpoint docs that don't generalize, response shapes that make a "fast path" always-false, fakes that encode your assumption rather than the service's behavior, and dry-runs that skip the step that fails. Use when integrating a new dependency or endpoint, writing a tolerated-status or error branch, choosing a client argument name, testing against a fake, or reviewing code that asserts an upstream contract.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Generate argument validation logic with type coercion, constraints, custom validators, and helpful error messages for CLI applications.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Für Fähige: Risikoampel, Gegenargumente und Verteidigungslinien: prüft Ergebnis, Beweislast und Gegenposition; Ergebnis: Fristen- und Risikoampel.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Calm a heated conflict — in person or in writing — before it does damage, by lowering the temperature instead of winning the point. Use when asked help me de-escalate this, this argument is getting heated, calm this situation down, or how do I respond without making it worse. Produces a read on what's actually driving the heat (often an unmet need under the surface argument), the de-escalation moves (acknowledge, slow down, find the shared ground), what to say and what to avoid, and how to steer toward resolution once the temperature drops — because you can't solve anything while everyone's activated.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when stress-testing the LOGIC of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) theory manuscript — checking logical coherence, running thought experiments and counterfactuals, addressing alternative explanations and disconfirming cases, and verifying each proposition follows from its argument. This is ARGUMENT DEVELOPMENT, NOT data analysis; AMR publishes no datasets, no statistics, and no empirical results.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Apply elite legal writing techniques drawn from Justice Kagan, Boies & Olson, and other top advocates to any legal document — briefs, submissions, letters, opinions, memos, or persuasive correspondence. This skill covers both prose craft (clarity, examples, parallel construction, voice, quoting) and architectural strategy (argument sequencing, framing, openings, endings). Use this skill whenever the user asks you to draft, edit, or improve legal writing and wants it to be genuinely persuasive — not just correct. Also trigger when the user mentions 'make it more persuasive', 'sharpen this', 'strengthen the argument', 'rewrite this section', 'punch it up', 'legal writing', 'draft a brief', 'draft a submission', 'write like a top advocate', or asks you to improve the rhetoric, flow, or force of any legal document. This skill complements the larissa-legal-voice skill (which handles tone and personal voice) by adding the persuasive technique layer on top.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a slash command", "add a command", "write a custom command", "define command arguments", "use command frontmatter", "organize commands", "create command with file references", "interactive command", "use AskUserQuestion in command", or needs guidance on slash command structure, YAML frontmatter fields, dynamic arguments, bash execution in commands, user interaction patterns, or command development best practices for Claude Code.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

This skill should be used when the user asks about "ralph arguments", "quick mode", "commit spec", "max iterations", "ralph state file", "prototype overlay", "execution modes", "ralph loop", "coordinator behavior", "delegate to subagent", or needs guidance on Ralph plugin arguments, state management, delegation patterns, or execution loop behavior. Core behavioral skill for all Ralph Specum operations.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Guidance for managing R package lifecycle according to tidyverse principles using the lifecycle package. Use when: (1) Setting up lifecycle infrastructure in a package, (2) Deprecating functions or arguments, (3) Renaming functions or arguments, (4) Superseding functions, (5) Marking functions as experimental, (6) Understanding lifecycle stages (stable, experimental, deprecated, superseded), or (7) Writing deprecation helpers for complex scenarios.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Build a final, machine-readable argument snapshot from current H3 sections and refresh section fingerprints before merge.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Help with humanities scholarly writing: sharpen research questions, map supplied readings, plan and draft arguments, review chapters, preserve authorial voice, and respond to reviewers. Use for history, philosophy, literature, and related argumentative scholarship, including 论文、改论文、文献综述、审稿意见、我手写我口, or “review this paragraph” when an academic draft is in context. Not for unrelated copywriting or a standalone literature-search pipeline.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a slash command", "add a command", "write a custom command", "define command arguments", "use command frontmatter", "organize commands", "create command with file references", "interactive command", "use AskUserQuestion in command", or needs guidance on slash command structure, YAML frontmatter fields, dynamic arguments, bash execution in commands, user interaction patterns, or command development best practices for Claude Code.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps and low-value tests by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to "review my code", "full code review", "review my changes", "check for bugs", "scan for bugs", "review correctness", "security audit", "find vulnerabilities", "review security", "check API usage", "verify against docs", "check for cross-file duplication", "review consistency", "check for code reuse", "review simplicity", "find untested code", "find redundant tests", or "review test coverage".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a slash command", "add a command", "write a custom command", "define command arguments", "use command frontmatter", "organize commands", "create command with file references", "interactive command", "use AskUserQuestion in command", or needs guidance on slash command structure, YAML frontmatter fields, dynamic arguments, bash execution in commands, user interaction patterns, or command development best practices for Claude Code.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Construct statistical arguments for MVP/awards. Narrative framing, comparison to past winners, advanced metrics, counter-arguments.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

This skill should be used when the user asks about "theme", "controlling idea", "thematic argument", "moral argument", "thematic arc", "flat arc", "negative arc", "the lie", "antagonist design", "motif", "symbolism", "theme audit", or wants to plan, track, or revise the thematic layer of a story, including the lie, truth, ghost-wound, and arc-type fields of a character file. NOT for finding or testing a story premise (use premise-workshop), or a character's profile, relationships, or "character arc" record (use character-management).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Fix S3 "InvalidArgument" errors when using Google Cloud Storage S3-compatible API with ObjectCannedAcl::PublicRead or x-amz-acl headers. Use when: (1) put_object or upload_blob fails with InvalidArgument on GCS, (2) Using aws-sdk-s3 Rust crate with GCS endpoint (storage.googleapis.com), (3) Bucket has uniform bucket-level access enabled (GCS default since 2023), (4) S3 operations work on MinIO/AWS but fail on GCS. GCS rejects per-object ACLs when uniform bucket-level access is enabled.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Builds command-line tools in Go with Cobra, the library behind kubectl, Hugo and the GitHub CLI: subcommands, flags, argument validation, generated help and shell completions. Use when a user asks to create a Go CLI, add subcommands or flags, validate arguments, bind flags to config files and environment variables with Viper, or generate bash, zsh, fish or PowerShell completions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Synthesize the single strongest EVIDENCE-BOUND reviewer case to reject a paper, built ONLY from the evidence ledger (claims.json) + the other auditors' confirmed findings — never free-floating LLM critique. Two fresh cross-model codex threads: an attack writes the ~200-word rejection paragraph (every accusation tagged to an existing claim_id/finding_id), a defense decomposes it and rules each point against the anchored evidence. MEMO-ONLY: emits adversarial-case-builder.memo.md (fed to the adjudicator via --memo) and carries NO verdict weight — tools/adjudicate_findings.py lists it in ZERO_WEIGHT_SKILLS and caps it at info. Honest-null allowed (the paper may survive). Run LAST. Detect-only. Adapted from ARIS kill-argument. Triggers: "adversarial case", "strongest objection", "rejection memo", "kill argument", "最强拒稿点".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Internal Harness instruction source for auto-paper-argument. Route through visible Harness aliases instead of invoking directly.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Audit the reasoning of a document or argument (memo, proposal, investment analysis, board paper, article, the user's own draft): claims, evidence, unstated assumptions, logical gaps, fallacies, and what would falsify it, each anchored to quoted text. Use whenever the user wants reasoning examined, in any language ("audit this argument", "is this analysis sound", "poke holes in this proposal", "review the logic of my draft"; Vietnamese "phản biện giúp tôi", "soi lập luận này", "tài liệu này có lỗ hổng gì", "góp ý bản nháp của tôi"), even when they never say "critical thinking". Also use when the user drops a document and asks whether to trust or act on it, or asks to see their reasoning profile. Not for company-level strategic bets (strategy-board) or learning a topic through dialogue (socratic-questor).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.