'consensus' 검색 결과

Treats a ctDNA assay as a molecule-counting experiment at the Poisson edge and builds its analytical-validation case the measurement-science way. Covers the genome-equivalent currency (~330 haploid copies/ng), the lambda = input_GE x VAF sampling ceiling (lambda>=3 for ~95% detection), the error-suppression ladder (raw NGS ~1e-3 -> single-strand UMI ~1e-4/1e-5 -> duplex <1e-7), the CLSI EP17 LoB/LoD/LoD95/LoQ framework, the per-locus-vs-panel-integrated LoD distinction that lets bespoke MRD reach ppm, contrived/SEQC2 reference standards, and honest LoD reporting conditioned on input mass + consensus depth + replicate detection rate. Use when stating or trusting a sensitivity claim, designing a dilution-series validation, deciding how many genome equivalents are needed at a target VAF, choosing a single-locus vs panel-integrated LoD, or auditing a "detects 0.1% VAF" claim.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Call accessible chromatin regions from ATAC-seq BAM files using MACS3, MACS2, Genrich, or HMMRATAC. Use when identifying open chromatin from aligned ATAC-seq, choosing between point-source vs HMM peak callers, applying ENCODE-style pseudoreplicate IDR, removing blacklist regions, or fixing 501bp consensus peaks for downstream differential analysis.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Identify differentially accessible chromatin regions across conditions using DiffBind, csaw, DESeq2, or edgeR. Use when comparing ATAC-seq accessibility between treatment groups, choosing between consensus-peak vs sliding-window approaches, picking the correct normalization (full library vs reads-in-peaks), correcting batch with SVA/RUVseq, or interpreting log2FC and FDR thresholds in a chromatin context.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Process and analyze single-cell ATAC-seq data with Signac, ArchR, SnapATAC2, or Cell Ranger ATAC. Use when handling 10X scATAC or 10X Multiome (paired RNA+ATAC) data, performing per-cell QC, choosing between ArchR/Signac/SnapATAC2 ecosystems, building per-cluster consensus peaksets, integrating with paired scRNA-seq, doublet detection (AMULET vs ArchR vs scDblFinder), or running pseudobulk differential accessibility per cluster.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Multi-agent structured debate with anti-groupthink mechanisms — Devil's Advocate, minority opinion protection, 2-round hard cap. Use when divergent perspectives matter more than consensus (architecture decisions, design tradeoffs, contested specifications).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Multi-LLM adversarial consensus loop — 3+ LLMs compete to find flaws in designs/specs until unanimous agreement is reached

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Judge board subskill for simmer. Dispatches a panel of judges with different lenses, runs one deliberation round where they challenge each other's scores, then synthesizes consensus scores + single ASI. Drop-in replacement for simmer-judge that produces identical output format. Do not invoke directly — dispatched by the simmer orchestrator when JUDGE_MODE is board.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Annotate speech/TTS datasets with per-clip quality metrics (MOS, SNR, STOI, pitch, bandwidth, speaking rate, WER/CER, gender/emotion), multi-ASR consensus transcription and speaker labeling using the audiogear pipeline; then filter clips by quality and build listenable HTML QA reports. Use when asked to compute audio dataset metrics, build extended_metadata.csv, transcribe unlabeled audio, select clean TTS training data, or QA a speech dataset.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Apply the four published expert-consensus clinical scenarios to manage GI adverse events in complex GLP-1 receptor agonist patients — persistent nausea mid-titration, GERD/heartburn after up-titration, elderly with sarcopenia risk, and insulin-treated elderly with CKD plus diarrhoea. Use when a clinician describes a patient resembling one of these archetypes, or asks "how to manage GLP-1 in an elderly patient with CKD", "patient on liraglutide developed reflux", "sarcopenia worry on semaglutide in 80-year-old", or "persistent nausea on semaglutide despite escalation". Grounded in Gorgojo-Martínez 2023 Table 4.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Decide whether a kidney from a brain-dead deceased donor (DBD) with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension is suitable for transplantation, using the ISOT 2025 Delphi consensus and Table 4 eligibility checklist. Trigger when a clinician asks "can I use a kidney from a diabetic deceased donor", "is this DBD with HTN/DM acceptable", "ECD donor with diabetes — accept or decline", "DBD eligibility for hypertensive donor", or shares a deceased donor with diabetes or hypertension and needs an accept/borderline/decline decision.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Optimize prediction-pool tips (kicktipp etc.): rules + multi-book consensus odds → expected-points-max answer for every question, scores AND bonus. Triggers 'optimize my pool tips', 'predict'.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use to consolidate multiple already-run judge verdicts into one report — consensus, conflicts, must-fix/should-fix with per-judge provenance. Consume-only, no opaque score, never auto-gates.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Run a two-agent proxy approval council for autonomous sprint gates. Use when a sprint needs delegated approval for human gates such as deploy, live mutation, push, cleanup, skip, or shortened watch decisions, while requiring two independent agents to reach consensus that the human principal would approve under written policy and preferences.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Run a two-agent independent review/redteam followed by peer collaboration to produce a consensus superset of findings and enumerated revision requests. Use when Codex 5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 should first critique a matter independently, then exchange work, synthesize the best combined analysis, and finish with a single agreed revision list.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Agents with competing priorities reach consensus through structured trade-offs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Combine independent work from two or more selected agents into one decision-ready research report, design, or proposal. Preserve useful complementary findings, develop stronger combined options, and present material alternatives only when they exist. Use when multiple perspectives should improve the product without forcing consensus or staging disagreement.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turn any hypothesis, however fringe, into an argument map rather than a verdict: five independent lenses (consensus, skeptic, frontier, historian, experimental design), then a synthesis of for and against, evidence quality, a confidence tier and the cheapest decisive experiment. Triggers: "/research-swarm <hypothesis>", "map the arguments on X".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Protocol for two LLM agents (Claude, Codex or any other) to agree and work from one shared folder: message format, channels, roles, evidence rules, wake-up alarm and anti-patterns. Triggers: /llm-pact, agree with codex, connect a second agent, pair rules, agent consensus, two-agent protocol.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Short alias for /llms: settle the current question through a targeted, bounded consensus of other LLMs. Use when you want outside models to agree or disagree with a plan before acting. All logic lives in the llms skill. Triggers: /LLLL, llll.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Fan one deep-research prompt out to several external LLMs at once through a logged-in browser, then collect the reports, archive the originals and synthesize a consensus. Use at the final stage of a research protocol, instead of hand-pasting one prompt into N sites. Triggers: "/dr-fanout", "fan out the DR", "distribute the research prompt".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Spar with the founder as a synthetic cofounder on business questions (revenue, funnel, pricing, fundraising, debt, hiring, runway) with numbered objections and no flattery, arguing to consensus instead of agreeing. Not a coach and not a chatbot. Triggers: "/cofounder", or any strategic business question.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Multi-agent debate orchestration for Architecture Decision Records. Automatically triggers on ADR create/edit/delete. Coordinates architect, critic, independent-thinker, security, analyst, and high-level-advisor agents in structured debate rounds until consensus.

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.

Run the full design-doc-writer and design-doc-reviewer loop until consensus. Produces a polished design document with a PR plan.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.