89건 · 관련도순
Select the right formative assessment technique for a specific learning moment, purpose, and age group. Use when choosing how to check understanding during, between, or after lessons.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design an adaptive assessment loop where each student response triggers the next instructional move. Use when building technology-enhanced formative assessment cycles.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design an adaptive assessment loop where each student response triggers the next instructional move. Use when building technology-enhanced formative assessment cycles.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Select the right formative assessment technique for a specific learning moment, purpose, and age group. Use when choosing how to check understanding during, between, or after lessons.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
"Apply Partial Least Squares SEM (PLS-SEM) with reflective and formative measurement models to maximize explained variance in endogenous constructs. Use this skill when the user has small samples, formative indicators, or exploratory models, needs to assess AVE/CR/HTMT, or when they ask 'should I use PLS or CB-SEM', 'how do I handle formative constructs', or 'what is the path coefficient significance'.".
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Plan and execute user research including research planning, recruiting, interview design, qualitative synthesis, and translating findings into product decisions. Use this skill whenever the user wants to plan user research, design interviews, recruit participants, conduct discovery, run formative research, or synthesize qualitative findings. Triggers on user research, UX research, user interviews, discovery research, generative research, formative research, qualitative research, user insights, research synthesis, recruitment, interview guide, jobs to be done. Also triggers when product decisions are being made without user input and the user wants to fix that.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design a single-point rubric with one criterion and open columns for evidence. Use for student self-assessment, peer feedback, teacher formative feedback, or pre-task planning. Works with any learning target, with or without a band system.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design formative assessments that make students' historical thinking visible — revealing whether they source, close-read, contextualise, and corroborate. Use when assessing historical thinking skills or planning a diagnostic.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Routes between five assessment pathways — formative, rubric/criteria, authentic/performance, peer/self, and diagnostic — with validity and equity checks. Use when a teacher needs help choosing how to assess.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Creates a Check for Understanding (CFU) for a math topic or standard: 1–3 targeted formative items whose distractors come from documented student misconceptions, plus a teacher guide routing each likely response to a specific next instructional step. Load BEFORE asking any clarifying question about grade, standard, or topic. This skill is for math; for other subjects, help as you normally would and don't mention the skill to the user. Triggers on asks to create, write, generate, or design a check for understanding, formative check, quick check, or exit ticket for a math concept or standard, and on implicit signals like "I need to see who got it before I move on." Not a quiz, test, or practice set — a CFU is read for what it reveals, not scored, so a numbered quiz or a bare answer key is a different job. Does not create a lesson (k12-lesson-plan-creation, which brings its own exit ticket), tier one (k12-lesson-differentiation), or prepare a teacher to teach one (k12-lesson-prep).
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design a single-point rubric with one criterion and open columns for evidence. Use for student self-assessment, peer feedback, teacher formative feedback, or pre-task planning. Works with any learning target, with or without a band system.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design formative assessments that make students' historical thinking visible — revealing whether they source, close-read, contextualise, and corroborate. Use when assessing historical thinking skills or planning a diagnostic.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Routes between five assessment pathways — formative, rubric/criteria, authentic/performance, peer/self, and diagnostic — with validity and equity checks. Use when a teacher needs help choosing how to assess.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
코드 리뷰 의견을 실제 코드와 지원 환경에 대조해 타당성을 확인합니다. 불명확한 내용을 정리하고 근거를 들어 답변하며, 수정 사항마다 테스트합니다.
Check image alt attributes, the text screen readers use to explain images. Identify missing or vague descriptions, distinguish decorative and linked images, and improve text alternatives for images containing words, charts, and other complex information.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.
Develop Bayesian models for quantitative social science, from choosing priors to reporting posterior results. Guide MCMC, a sampling method for estimating distributions, check convergence, and assess sensitivity for hierarchical models and small datasets.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.
Evaluate code review feedback against the actual code, supported environments, and existing behavior. Clarify uncertain requests, respond with technical evidence, and implement valid changes one at a time with tests for each fix.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when the user asks to "triage our comments, DMs, and mentions", "draft replies to this thread", "can we repost this fan post", or "set up inbox SLAs and an escalation path"; produces a ranked triage queue with register detection (sincere / ironic / performative / parasocial, sentiment-inversion table included — "this is so bad" under a comedy register is praise), a commenter taxonomy (troll monitor-only / rager / misguided / unhappy-customer / advocate) with a response-tier ladder and per-channel SLAs, an escalation matrix ending at the crisis path, a moderation ladder plus house rules for owned spaces, and a UGC curation-and-rights mode whose dated permission entries route to the channel registry — every reply is a ranked DRAFT a human posts; nothing is ever auto-sent. Not for launch-window feedback triage — use launch-feedback-synthesizer. 评论私信提及分诊/语域识别/回复草稿/UGC授权
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement, requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims. Essential for subagent-driven development, pull requests, and preventing false completion claims.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when you need a standardized R CLI workflow to run two-class SVM-RFE feature ranking on an expression-like matrix, choose an informative feature count from cross-validated error, and generate reproducible ranking and error plots. NOT for regression, multi-class classification, missing-value imputation, or remote data fetching.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Write calm, businesslike co-parenting messages that keep the focus on the kids and stay out of the old conflict — for scheduling, expenses, decisions, and hard topics. Use when asked to write a message to my co-parent, respond to my ex about the kids, co-parenting communication help, or how to reply without a fight. Produces a message drafted in a neutral, child-centered tone (the 'BIFF'-style brief/informative/friendly/firm approach), the bait removed, a clear ask or answer, and a note on documentation — steering away from anything that escalates. Not legal advice.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Designs Bayesian clinical trials including Phase I dose-finding (BOIN, CRM, EWOC, mTPI-2), meta-analytic-predictive (MAP) priors with robust mixtures for external data borrowing, EXNEX for basket trials, hierarchical models for safety AE (Berry-Berry), Bayesian platform trials (I-SPY 2, GBM AGILE, REMAP-CAP), and posterior probability stopping rules. Covers FDA Bayesian Devices Guidance (2010), FDA Bayesian Methodology in Drugs Draft (January 2026), BOIN Fit-for-Purpose qualification (December 2021), and Project Optimus dose-optimisation. Use when designing dose-finding studies, platform trials, or sensitivity analyses with informative priors.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.