「evidence」の検索結果

Builds a DRAFT weighted supplier evaluation matrix from supplier responses and the panel's agreed criteria, weights and scale: a provisional score per cell with the quoted evidence and anchor behind it, a register of every missing or partial answer, and calibration and sensitivity flags. Provisional for panel moderation; never recommends, awards or disqualifies. Use when the user asks to score, weight or rank supplier, bid or tender responses against agreed criteria, for example "score these bids", "build the evaluation matrix", "weight the tender responses" or "rank the suppliers against our criteria". Do not use for a side-by-side comparison without scores, use rfp-comparison-pack instead; for writing the criteria, use rfp-requirements-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a DRAFT structured interview scorecard from a job description: five to eight competencies traced to it, past-behaviour and situational evidence questions with probes, four-level rating anchors written as observable behaviours, a blank scoring sheet, a panel plan and the items the hiring manager must confirm. Use when the user asks to "build an interview scorecard for this job description", "write competency questions for this role", "draft the interview guide for the panel", "set up a rating scale for the interviewers", "put together a structured interview kit" or "create a hiring rubric from the JD". Do not use for writing or fixing the job description itself, use job-description-drafter instead; for the new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Triages a batch of customer support tickets (helpdesk export, shared mailbox, chat transcripts, web forms) into one row per ticket with category, urgency graded on the evidence in the ticket, suggested next action and owner, plus a DRAFT customer reply for every ticket that needs one, returned as one Markdown pack. Use when the user asks to "triage these tickets", "sort the support queue", "what needs an answer first", "categorise this backlog", "draft replies for these tickets" or "build today's queue review". Do not use for internal requests from colleagues, use request-intake-triage instead; for one long thread that needs handing over, use escalation-summary; for a personal mailbox, use inbox-triage. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Checks a master document register extract for gaps and returns a DRAFT question list for document control: missing or out-of-sequence revisions, overdue or slipping deliverables, numbering that breaks the project convention, duplicates and incomplete rows, each with row, test and quoted evidence. Never edits the register, re-baselines a date or marks a deliverable complete. Use when the user asks to "check the MDR", "find the gaps in the deliverables list" or "prepare questions on the drawing register". Do not use for drafting a transmittal from a document list, use transmittal-drafter instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a DRAFT board paper skeleton from the sponsor's inputs: purpose, recommendation as the sponsor states it, options including do nothing, risks, financials exactly as provided, authority to decide and the decision sought, with every claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so the sponsor sees what still needs support. Use when the user asks to "draft a board paper", "structure the committee paper", "prepare the decision paper for the investment committee", "skeleton the board memo" or "what goes in the paper for the audit committee". Do not use for a pre-read or briefing pack with no resolution sought, use executive-briefing-pack instead; to record a decision already taken in a discussion, use decision-memo-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reads a cash forecast (spreadsheet, model export, pasted table or the narrative that accompanies it) and returns a DRAFT assumptions sheet: every assumption the forecast rests on, stated or implied by the figures, with its value as read, its location in the model, the cash lines it drives, its stated source or "not stated", the evidence that would test it, an owner, and one neutral challenge question, so a reviewer can work through the assumptions one by one. Use when the user asks to "list the assumptions behind this cash forecast", "what is this cash flow forecast assuming", "prepare the challenge questions for the treasury review", "pull out the drivers of the 13-week cash forecast" or "build an assumptions register for the liquidity plan". Do not use for actuals against budget by line, use budget-variance-explainer instead; do not use for the case behind a capital request, use capex-request-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns one decision discussion (meeting transcript, chat thread, email chain or notes) into a DRAFT one-page decision memo: the decision as stated, status, options considered, evidence cited, dissent recorded verbatim, owner, effective date and review date, with UNKNOWN for anything the discussion did not settle. Use when the user asks to "write up the decision", "record what we decided", "capture the decision from this thread", "draft the decision memo" or "add this to the decision log". Do not use for full minutes or action items, use transcript-to-actions instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for a paper seeking a decision not yet taken, use board-paper-skeleton. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Drafts an architecture or design decision record (ADR) from the discussion notes, design review minutes, chat threads and diagram descriptions the user provides: context, decision drivers, options considered with arguments as stated, the decision as the group worded it, consequences and a review date, with every factual claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so unsupported claims are marked for the author to substantiate. Use when the user asks to "write an ADR", "document the architecture decision", "record why we chose this design", "turn these design review notes into a decision record" or "draft the design decision log entry". Do not use for a business or governance decision with no technical design, use decision-memo-builder instead; for the change ticket that implements the decision, use change-request-pack. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Quality gate immediately after building: prove that what was just built actually works, while the context is still hot. Six steps: scope what changed, run live on real data, break it on purpose, show a counter or log proving it ran, root-cause any failure and re-run, then a verdict with evidence. Only a green verdict earns the word done. Supports an external multi-vendor review panel as a mid-step. Triggers: "/tt", "/test", "prove it works", "test what we built".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Stop black console windows (cmd, PowerShell, Windows Terminal) from flashing and stealing focus on a Windows machine. Use when scheduled tasks, hooks or background scripts pop up consoles: finds all three sources with evidence, silences them reversibly and proves the before and after count. Triggers: /windowless, black windows, console windows popping, windows steal focus.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

- Turn findings into a defensible intelligence product — BLUF key judgements, standardised estimative probability language, per-claim sourcing with timestamps and archived copies, separated observation, inference and assessment,… Use when writing an intelligence report, due-diligence memo, evidence pack or executive summary, or when asked to write up an investigation so it survives challenge

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Find live third-party GitHub issues and discussions on topics where you have real hands-on experience and artifacts, then reply with that experience to build reputation. Use when asked to answer people about your work, find threads matching your expertise, or reply with evidence from your own setup.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Answer reviewers on your own pull requests in other people's repos: find threads where the ball is on your side, tell humans from bots, do exactly what was asked and reply with evidence. Use at the start of any GitHub session or on a new-review alert. Triggers: /pr-reply, /prr, answer the reviewers, who is waiting on us.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

- Recover deleted, edited or historical web content using the Wayback Machine and its CDX API, archive.today, Common Crawl… Use when a page is deleted, changed or 404s, checking what a site used to say, finding old team or staff pages, prior pricing, removed posts, pre-redaction wording or old contact details, enumerating every archived URL for a domain, or preserving evidence before it disappears

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Track and collect promises: every promise, theirs to us and ours to them, goes into a registry with date and source, gets a reminder when due and is closed with evidence. Triggers: /promises, log this promise, who promised us what, what did we promise, overdue promises, promise tracker.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

- Geolocate and chronolocate a photo or video from visual evidence alone — plate and phone number formats, road markings, utility poles, bollards, signage typefaces, architecture and vegetation for… Use when asked where or when a picture was taken, to verify a claimed location without GPS or EXIF, or to match a scene against Google Earth, Street View, Yandex Panoramas, Mapillary or KartaView

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Watch incoming feedback from outside engineers on your open-source repos: comments, reviews, issues, mentions. Use when you need to find who replied to your pull requests or issues, triage human versus bot responses, and answer within a day with evidence.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Research any open-source repository end to end and answer the core question — SHOULD YOU contribute to it? — with a GO / NO-GO / GO-IF verdict backed by evidence: snapshot, momentum, contribution landscape (PR acceptance rates, outside-contributor merge rates, first-timer outcomes), issue health, governance, community sentiment, and a final go/no-go recommendation. Use when the user asks 'should I contribute to X', wants a before-I-contribute due-diligence check on a project, asks whether a project accepts outside PRs, wants contribution-health numbers like PR merge rates or stale-PR counts, or asks for a deep dive on an open-source codebase's health and dynamics before investing time in it.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audit, grade, rewrite, and issue funny evidence-backed tickets for generic AI-slop patterns in prose, social posts, UI/design, and code. Use when asked to de-slop writing, humanize AI copy, grade a draft, review a landing page or generated interface, remove vague claims and repetitive rhetoric, inspect AI-written code for generic abstractions and happy-path-only logic, or ticket someone for a specific quality offense. Do not use to determine whether AI authored something.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。