'bench' 검색 결과

Collect and analyze public X posts from keywords, hashtags, OR queries, domains, or known post URLs, then trace them to primary sources, official docs, GitHub repos, benchmarks, and reusable images. Use for launch-day reactions to a new model or product, event hashtags, keynote coverage, new-technology use cases, popularity research, or turning noisy X posts into a source-backed research note. Triggers: X で調べて, X の反応, ハッシュタグ調査, キーワードで X 検索, X 投稿からネタ探し. Not for posting or account operations on X.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Create reproducible animated infographic GIFs from structured data or measured results, with audience-language labels, explicit timing semantics, representative-frame QA, and a static fallback. Use when asked for GIF生成, animated infographic, 動的インフォグラフィック, 結果が流れる図, animated benchmark, or a blog/SNS animation whose displayed metrics must remain traceable to source data.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Performance regression detection using the browse daemon. (gstack).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

"Apply the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, 1988) to measure service quality gaps across five dimensions. Use this skill when the user needs to diagnose service quality shortfalls, benchmark customer expectations against perceptions, design service improvement programs, or when they ask 'where is our service failing', 'what do customers expect vs experience', or 'how do we measure service quality'.".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Design and draft multi-email sequences with full copy, timing, branching logic, exit conditions, and performance benchmarks. Use when building onboarding, lead nurture, re-engagement, win-back, or product launch flows, when you need a complete drip campaign with A/B test suggestions, or when mapping a sequence end-to-end with a flow diagram.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Dose-response modeling — EC50 estimation, curve fitting, synergy analysis, and benchmark-dose methods.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Evaluate AI agents rigorously — task benchmarks, success criteria, failure taxonomy, cost/latency tracking, and regression testing. Use when you need to know whether an agent actually works, not whether it demos well.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Frappe-specific search and discovery guidance for finding benches, apps, remotes, sites, ports, hooks, DocTypes, builder DocTypes, and frontend surfaces quickly. Use when the task starts with locating or classifying Frappe context.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

End-to-end Frappe and ERPNext implementation guidance spanning backend Python, backend JavaScript surfaces, Vue or React frontends, customizations, and bench-aware delivery. Use when the task crosses multiple Frappe layers.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when designing, redrawing, or validating research-paper figures and tables, including Matplotlib plots, LaTeX tables, benchmarks, captions, legends, annotations, color, and typography. Preserves exact evidence and checks rendered PDFs for clipping, overlap, and readability.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review contracts with clause-by-clause risk scoring, market benchmarks, negotiability ratings, and redline suggestions. Use when the user pastes an NDA, SaaS/MSA, M&A LOI, or payment agreement and wants a Contract Safety Score, CUAD-based risk breakdown, or /review as [position] analysis.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when asked how other design systems handle a component, prop, token or pattern; to name a component, prop or token; to research best practices (composition, when to split, a11y, responsiveness, motion) before building; or for a design-system discovery or benchmark report. Compares Coinbase CDS, Adobe Spectrum, Astryx, Material, Primer, MetaMask DS and Base UI, anchors the recommendation in Lumen's code, and outputs a shareable HTML report.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Consult this skill BEFORE proposing a fix to any CLI gap or schema gap that touches evidence, trust magnitude, evidence types, evidence grades, the TM formula, or star-level promotion gates. Also read it whenever an issue mentions citations, stars, commits, contributors, views, reviewers, percentile, arxiv, github-stars-own, repo-own, social-signal, benchmark-result, peer-review, self-attestation, fusion-recipe, verifier-attestation, or proxy-containment — those are the 10 canonical evidence types and the raw inputs that feed their formulas. Also read it when asked whether a skill qualifies for a given star level (0★–6★): the Star Bar and promotion gates live in `META.md`, not in the TM methodology page. Reading both prevents proposing a calibration that satisfies the TM grade threshold but violates a Star Bar installability or link requirement.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Batch wrapper for /gaia-ingest. Ingests a bounded set of already-verified evidence rows through CLI-only writes, uses --no-build on every row, appraises Trust Magnitude for every affected named skill, then runs exactly one build and validation pass. Use for an L4-approved intake after /ev-pipeline; benchmark-result rows also require a Phase 2B report and explicit human gate approval.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Run this skill for Phase 3 of the evidence verification pipeline — the adversarial audit step. Use when you need to check the evidence data lake for bad data before ingestion: dead links, wrong URL formats (tree/ vs blob/), subjective wording ("elite", "high-quality"), stale migration notes, benchmark catalog misuse/vendor-claim leakage, or skills whose star evidence conflicts with classified evidence level. Triggers on phrases like: "audit the data lake", "adversarial check", "ev-adversarial-audit", "check for noise in evidence", "flag bad evidence", "run the audit phase", "quality check the by-type files", or any reference to Phase 3 of the pipeline.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Canonical entry point for the full Gaia evidence verification pipeline. Invoke as /evidence-verification-pipeline or /ev-pipeline — both names trigger this skill. Use whenever you need to run the evidence phases end-to-end: collecting raw evidence from the data lake, verifying live GitHub star counts, running Phase 2B benchmark-source verification, running adversarial auditing for noise and URL errors, and checking link health via Firecrawl. Also use when someone says "run the evidence pipeline", "verify the evidence lake", "audit evidence", "run ev-pipeline", "full evidence check", "pipeline run", "prepare evidence for ingestion", or "refresh the data lake". This is the pre-ingestion step — run it before importing any evidence into the registry.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Phase 1 of the Gaia evidence verification pipeline. Use this skill whenever you need to gather, consolidate, or refresh raw evidence for named skills in the registry. Trigger phrases: "collect evidence", "populate the data lake", "gather sources", "run ev-collection", "Phase 1", "compile the evidence index", "refresh the unified lake", "aggregate skill evidence", "build the evidence database". Also invoke as the first step before running ev-star-verification, ev-adversarial-audit, or ev-link-validation — nothing downstream is meaningful without a fresh, compiled index. Covers GitHub repo links, stargazer signals, YouTube showcases, arXiv papers, peer reviews, benchmark results, blog/newsletter posts, and self-attestation artifacts.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Top-level orchestrator for the Gaia Skill Tree evidence verification pipeline. Run this when you want to do a full evidence pass — collecting raw sources, verifying live GitHub star counts, running Phase 2B benchmark-source verification, adversarially auditing for quality/formatting issues, and checking that every URL is reachable — all in one coordinated sequence. Trigger phrases: "run the evidence pipeline", "full evidence pass", "verify evidence", "evidence verification pipeline", "run ev-pipeline", "check all evidence", "audit the data lake", "evidence quality sweep", "refresh evidence", "validate evidence sources". Also aliased as /evidence-verification-pipeline. Use the individual sub-skills (ev-collection, ev-star-verification, ev-adversarial-audit, ev-link-validation) only when you need to re-run one phase in isolation; for end-to-end work, always start here.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, update or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a task needs the judgment of an Elementary School Teacher — interpreting a running record or fluency check against grade-level benchmarks, deciding whether a struggling reader needs a Tier 2 intervention, running a self-contained classroom's daily schedule across multiple subjects, implementing (not writing) an IEP/504 accommodation with fidelity, or writing a parent-conference summary grounded in assessment data.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a task needs the judgment of an Embedded/Firmware Engineer — analyzing worst-case execution time for a hard real-time deadline, choosing static over dynamic memory allocation to avoid fragmentation on a long-uptime device, keeping an interrupt service routine minimal and deferring work to the main loop, synchronizing a variable shared between an ISR and main context to prevent a torn read, or verifying a hardware register interaction against the datasheet's exact timing rather than observed bench behavior.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a task needs the judgment of an Environmental Science Professor — deciding whether a field exercise crosses a weather/safety cancel threshold, building an NSF/EPA proposal budget, normalizing an interdisciplinary tenure case against the right benchmark, checking whether a mixed-methods field project needs IRB review, or handling a politically charged classroom topic without losing academic-freedom footing.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a task needs the judgment of an Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologist/Technician — bench-testing a prototype board against a power or timing spec, isolating a resistive fault in a power path with node-to-node voltage-drop measurements, checking whether an oscilloscope's own bandwidth is limiting a rise-time measurement before trusting it, running a power-supply load-regulation sweep, or evaluating ESD-event provenance and IPC-A-610 acceptance on a returned unit.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a task needs the judgment of a Clinical Nurse Specialist — diagnosing why a unit-level outcome metric (CLABSI, falls, pressure injury) is off benchmark, designing and scaling a practice-change pilot, appraising whether a new clinical guideline actually fits the local population, writing a quarterly outcomes report to nursing leadership, or coaching staff nurses through a new protocol without formal authority over them. US hospital/health-system default; state nurse practice acts vary. A reasoning aid, not clinical or legal advice.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.