「claims」の検索結果

Use when the user asks to "codify our brand voice", "define naming rules for our products and tiers", or "write the tone-of-voice guide with banned phrases"; produces the brand-level voice canon (register, tone spectrum, banned-phrase list, few-shot examples drawn only from the brand's own published material) and the naming tax (product / feature / tier naming rules plus approved and banned terms) that seeds the narrative-registry canon and that every channel's voice adaptation points up to. Not for per-platform voice adaptation — use channel-registry's voice-dossier; not for finished copy or blog posts — use content-writer; not for the message hierarchy itself — use message-system-architect; not for claim adjudication — use offer-claims-registry. 品牌语气/词汇表/命名税/禁用词/品牌语言规范

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。

Use when the user asks to "build a message house", "write a PR-FAQ for our launch", or "define the launch narrative and value pillars"; derives from the positioning canvas a message house — tagline, one-liner, three value pillars, per-persona proof points (each labeled Measured / User-provided / [needs source]) — plus a working-backwards PR-FAQ narrative spine (launch-day tense, empty-chair test, five external + five internal FAQs) and per-channel message angle packs (angles, not finished copy). Not for the positioning canvas itself — use positioning-mapper; not for finished blog posts or pages — use content-writer; not for ad or email units — use each discipline creative builder; not for claim adjudication — use offer-claims-registry. 消息屋/PR-FAQ/价值支柱/发布叙事

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。

Use when the user asks to "write the email", "draft subject lines", or "build email creative"; produces the pre-click unit — subject-line variants + preheader, body copy, one clear CTA, and a plain-text alt — message-matched to the destination page and claims-ledger-aware. Not for pre-scoring or ranking subject-line variants (spam/truncation/render pre-score) — use subject-line-lab; not for scoring the email or computing EQS — use email-quality-auditor; not for the multi-step flow — use email-sequence-designer; not for the A/B test plan — use send-experiment-designer. 邮件文案/主题行/邮件创意

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。

Auto-grow a pro-workflow wiki by running a budget-capped BFS research loop over pluggable source fetchers (web, arXiv, GitHub). Each iteration pops a seed from the queue, fetches sources, drafts a wiki page, dedupes claims against existing pages, enqueues follow-up seeds. Halts on budget cap, depth cap, or convergence. Use when the user says "research <topic>", "grow the <slug> wiki", "auto-research", or wants a knowledge base that builds itself overnight.

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。

Render a self-contained HTML viewer for a pro-workflow wiki. Pages, sources, claims, seed queue, page-link graph and full-text search all in one file. No external dependencies, no JS framework, S3-uploadable. Use when the user wants to browse a wiki visually, share its current state with someone, audit research progress, or hand off a knowledge base. Inspired by Thariq Shihipar's "Unreasonable Effectiveness of HTML" — favors information density and shareability over markdown-only outputs.

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。

Use when doing ANY task involving Supabase. Triggers: Supabase products (Database, Auth, Edge Functions, Realtime, Storage, Vectors, Cron, Queues); client libraries and SSR integrations (supabase-js, @supabase/ssr) in Next.js, React, SvelteKit, Astro, Remix; auth issues (login, logout, sessions, JWT, cookies, getSession, getUser, getClaims, RLS); Supabase CLI or MCP server; schema changes, migrations, declarative schemas, security audits, Postgres extensions (pg_graphql, pg_cron, pg_vector); debugging and troubleshooting errors or unexpected behavior on Supabase projects (HTTP errors, Postgres errors, RLS surprises, permission denied, schema cache issues, timeouts, Edge Function crashes, Realtime drops, Storage failures) and reading or querying logs (Logs Explorer, ClickHouse).

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。

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.

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。

Formulate evidence-bounded scientific questions, candidate hypotheses, rival explanations, causal or associational claims, discriminating predictions, measurements, and preregistration-ready analysis plans. Use when turning observations or preliminary findings into transparent, testable research plans without treating hypotheses as facts.

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。

Standards and audits for writing academic papers, especially ML/NLP submissions to NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, EMNLP, NAACL. Covers the author's house prose rules (zero em dashes, zero fluff, every sentence earns its place), verification of hallucinated claims and hallucinated or malformed bibliography entries, the ACL policy on AI writing assistance and what must be disclosed, and best practices for paper structure, experiments, reproducibility checklists, and rebuttals. Use this skill whenever the user is drafting, editing, polishing, restructuring, or reviewing a paper, abstract, intro, related work, rebuttal, or camera-ready; whenever they ask to "clean up" or "tighten" academic writing; whenever citations or a .bib file need checking; and whenever they ask what has to be disclosed about AI assistance. Reach for it even when the user only says "make this section better", "check my references", or "is this ready to submit".

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。

Aligns learning material to the standard it claims — choosing the right framework for the grade and subject, citing standards by code rather than reproducing their text, and telling a real alignment from a decorative one. Use this to align a worksheet, lesson or workbook to Common Core, NGSS or a state framework, to check an alignment claim before publishing, or to decide what may lawfully be printed on the cover.

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。

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

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。

Designs a structured real-world evidence study using EHR, claims, or registry data, with explicit handling of time zero, eligibility windows, exposure definitions, outcome windows, censoring, confounding control, and target-trial-emulation logic. Use this skill when the user needs study-type design and protocol framing for an observational clinical study based on routine-care data. Do not invent database fields, follow-up completeness, linkage, coding validity, or causal identifiability.

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。

Matches a user’s biomedical research direction, disease problem, study aim, data modality, and resource constraints to the most relevant recent algorithms and method papers. Always search real recent algorithm literature first, prioritize the last 12 months, expand to 1–3 years only when needed, and add canonical baselines only when necessary. Every formal algorithm recommendation must include the verified primary method paper, plus published downstream papers that actually cite/use the algorithm when such papers are found, with DOI when available. Never fabricate papers, algorithm names, authors, journals, years, DOI, PMID, links, or benchmark claims. If no directly verified algorithm paper is found, say so explicitly.

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。

Extracts concrete unmet clinical needs from guidelines, reviews, real-world studies, and clinical-practice evidence. Use this skill when a user wants to turn broad medical research value into specific clinical pain points such as weak early detection, poor risk stratification, treatment-response heterogeneity, monitoring gaps, diagnostic delay, undertreatment, overtreatment, or implementation failure. Always ground unmet-need claims in retrieved evidence and distinguish true care gaps from generic statements of importance.

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。

Maps whether a biomedical research topic, subtopic, or study angle is truly saturated, superficially crowded, strategically occupied, or still open for differentiated entry. Use this skill when a user wants to know whether a hot medical research direction is already overworked, whether meaningful whitespace remains, whether major groups have already occupied the obvious claims, and whether the timing window is still open. Always distinguish popularity from true saturation, and distinguish cosmetic novelty from meaningful differentiating entry.

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。

Identifies real, evidence-audited, topic-specific research gaps in medical research by first retrieving and verifying literature from trusted sources, then mapping the current evidence landscape, rejecting pseudo-gaps, and converting only medium/high-confidence gaps into study-ready research opportunities. Always require real literature retrieval before formal gap claims. Never fabricate references, metadata, or findings.

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。

Assesses whether a medical research topic is worth starting now by separating true novelty from pseudo-novelty, auditing real feasibility under stated resource constraints, and forcing a concrete start / narrow / redesign / stop decision. Always require explicit assumptions and never fabricate references, datasets, resource availability, precedent studies, or publication claims.

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 paper figure by figure before re-integrating the full narrative, so the user can identify the core findings quickly and check whether each visual actually supports the authors' main claims. Always separate figure content, figure-linked claim, evidentiary strength, and unsupported interpretation. Never fabricate references, PMIDs, DOIs, figure content, panel labels, result values, or study details that were not actually provided.

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。

Assesses whether study results are trustworthy by auditing design integrity, sample structure, statistical handling, bias control, validation chain, and claim discipline. It identifies where results are robust, fragile, overfit, under-validated, or overclaimed. Always separate reported findings from reliability judgment. Never fabricate references, PMIDs, DOIs, trial identifiers, study features, or validation claims.

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 whether manuscript references are accurately matched to claims, appropriately scoped, and not overextended, misquoted, or second-hand cited.

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。

Evidence requirement enforcement ensuring all claims are backed by logs, test results, or exit codes. Zero = success, non-zero = failure. No guessing allowed.

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。

Use whenever you run statistical analysis for the social sciences (regression, hypothesis tests, econometrics) or read Stata (.dta) / SPSS (.sav) data in this workspace. Enforces an execute-don't-interpret boundary (surface estimates, don't volunteer causal claims), checks the analysis against a preregistration plan for HARKing, verifies reproducible seeds, and reproduces .dta/.sav estimates via R. Flags integrity risks; never certifies the analysis is sound.

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。

Use ONLY when the user asks to check, validate, review or audit analysis code for scientific correctness, or when you are the reviewer agent running its checks. Never run it unprompted as part of ordinary analysis work. Covers physics, earth/geo, biology, chemistry, social science and bioprocess/fermentation. Runs a deterministic domain-correctness gate that catches code which runs but is scientifically wrong (unit/dimension mismatch, Euclidean distance on lat/lon without a CRS, 0-based/1-based coordinate and strand errors, impossible SMILES valence, uncorrected multiple comparisons, averaging a categorical code, unconstrained kinetic-parameter fits, kLa computed from raw DO instead of the driving force, arithmetic mean of raw CFU counts, ANOVA/Tukey with no assumption check, a curvature DOE design fit with a first-order model, an ML model fit across process scales with no correction). Surfaces structured findings; never claims the code is correct.

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。

Enforce the replication-protocol.md rule by cross-checking numeric claims in a manuscript against the actual R / Stata / Python outputs. Report PASS/FAIL per claim against tolerance thresholds. Use before submission and before releasing a replication package.

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。