「evaluate」の検索結果

Diagnoses and fixes skills in the dotnet/skills repository that lose to their own baseline, fail to activate, time out, or return "no credible improvement". Use when an evaluation verdict is a regression or underpowered, when a skill regressed after a change, when /evaluate reports no results, or when deciding whether a weak skill should be strengthened or retired. Do not use for scaffolding a brand-new skill (use create-skill) or a brand-new eval (use create-skill-test).

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。

Make a custom AI agent — Python or TypeScript/JavaScript, on a framework or hand-built — report what it did to Failproof AI, and run your own evaluator worker (the "eval pod") that scores those runs. Reach for it on vague phrasing too: "add observability to my agent", "why isn't my agent showing up?", "run an LLM judge on our own infra". Trigger when the user wants to: • plan an integration — which points in the agent loop to record; • instrument — add `failproofai-sdk` (Python) or `@failproofai/sdk` (Node, Bun, Deno, Next.js): turn on an adapter (LangChain/LangGraph, CrewAI, LlamaIndex, Pydantic AI, Vercel AI SDK, Mastra) or wire a hand-built loop; • verify — confirm events are written, or debug an integration that produces nothing; • evaluate — write, deploy or debug an Evaluator worker in Python or TypeScript. NOT for reading telemetry or scores that already landed (that's `fp-cloud-cli`), or deciding what is worth evaluating (that's `failproofai-eval-brainstorm`).

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 Agent Skill design quality against official specifications and best practices. Use when reviewing, auditing, or improving SKILL.md files and skill packages. Provides multi-dimensional scoring and actionable improvement suggestions.

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 factual claims in AI-generated text and teach a lightweight verification habit. Use when a learner wants to fact-check an AI answer, identify uncertainty, choose appropriate independent sources, or practise critical AI literacy.

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。

Hunt server-side template injection (SSTI) across Jinja2 (Flask/Django), Twig (Symfony), Freemarker (Java), ERB (Rails), Spring, Velocity, Mako, Thymeleaf, Smarty. Detection probes use double-curly and dollar-curly math expressions evaluated server-side. Once an engine is fingerprinted, escalate to RCE via the engine-specific class-walker, callback-registrar, or Execute-utility patterns documented in disclosed reports. Detection patterns: error messages reveal engine, blank or numeric eval reveals expression mode. Targets: email templates, PDF/report generators, CMS preview features, error pages with user input. Use when hunting RCE via template rendering, when content shows engine fingerprints, when finding endpoints that compose strings with user input before render.

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 and use SSH Remote Compute before choosing where to run GPU, high-memory, parallel, batch, model-inference, bioinformatics, or other long-running scientific work; supports short remote commands and asynchronous jobs with automatic harvest and analysis.

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。

Create, revise, evaluate, publish, and improve Open-Science Skills through the native JavaScript host.skills composer. Use when the user wants a reusable workflow, an existing Skill changed, test cases or benchmarks for a Skill, or better Skill triggering.

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。

This skill should be used when the user asks to "perform vulnerability scanning", "scan networks for open ports", "assess web application security", "scan wireless networks", "detect malware", "check cloud security", or "evaluate system compliance". It provides comprehensive guidance on security scanning tools and methodologies.

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。

This skill should be used when the user asks to "test for broken authentication vulnerabilities", "assess session management security", "perform credential stuffing tests", "evaluate password policies", "test for session fixation", or "identify authentication bypass flaws". It provides comprehensive techniques for identifying authentication and session management weaknesses in web applications.

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。

Run the R code review protocol on R scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, and professional standards. Produces a report without editing files. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants their existing R code evaluated or audited — not when they want new analysis written. Triggers include: "review my R script", "check my R code", "is my code replication-ready", "audit this R file", "does this code follow conventions", "will this reproduce", "check my analysis script", "code review", "review-r", or when the user has an existing .R file and wants quality feedback rather than new code.

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 and assess datasets for a research question. Dispatches Explorer agents to search across data source categories, then Explorer-Critic to stress-test each candidate. Produces a ranked list with feasibility grades. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants to identify or evaluate data sources — not to search for papers or run analysis. Triggers include: "find data", "what data should I use", "find a dataset for this", "where can I get data on X", "assess datasets", "what datasets exist for", "help me find data", "is there data on this", "what are my data options", "I need data for this project", or any request to locate empirical data sources for a research question.

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 a paper's contribution novelty, identify best-fit SSCI journal fields and ABS star rating, and recommend 20 target journals. Trigger when user says "paper submission" / "paper-submission" / "投稿评估" / "期刊推荐" / "target journal" / "选刊".

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。

Main orchestration workflow for systematic literature research - search, evaluate, traverse, synthesize

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 research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific 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。

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

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。

Apply the ScholarEval framework to systematically evaluate scholarly work across quality dimensions (novelty, rigor, significance, and clarity). Use to critique academic papers, research proposals, literature reviews, or grant applications and produce a structured, criterion-based assessment.

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。

Evaluates your campaign and ad set structure against your actual goals and budget. Flags over-segmentation that fragments your data, under-segmentation that hides performance differences, budget allocation issues, and consolidation opportunities that would improve algorithmic delivery and your ability to optimize. Platform: Google and Meta.

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。

Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and writing with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback.

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。

Single-page SEO audit: content quality under Google's E-E-A-T framework and Helpful Content guidelines, on-page factors, search intent, technical signals and readability. Pulls GSC data for the page, crawls the live HTML, checks metadata, schema, internal linking and depth, and produces a scored report with fixes. Use whenever the user wants to analyze a specific page or URL, not the whole site. Trigger on: "analyze this page", "audit this URL", "how is this page doing", "evaluate my blog post", "check this landing page", "page SEO", "content quality check", "is this page good enough", "review this page's SEO", "what's wrong with this page", "how can I improve this page", "page analysis", "single page audit", "content audit for [URL]", or any request naming a specific URL/page for SEO evaluation. If the user provides a specific URL (not just a domain), this is likely the right skill; use /seo-analysis for full-site audits instead.

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。

Systematically evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and writing with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback.

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 trained machine learning models with the right metrics and comparison logic. Use for benchmark review, threshold selection, calibration, validation, and model comparison; not for feature engineering or leakage auditing.

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。

LQF Machine Learning Expert Guide - Routed skill for ML/Statistical Modeling with Critical Discussion Mode. Triggers on: machine learning, modeling, prediction, training, classification, regression, clustering, deep learning, neural network, model evaluation, feature engineering, hyperparameter tuning, overfitting, underfitting, baseline, ablation study, critique my approach, review my model, is this a good idea, should I use, what's wrong with, evaluate my solution, challenge my assumptions, discuss my approach Engages in critical discussion with minimum 3 rounds of iterative refinement. Challenges both user proposals and own suggestions with fact-based critique. Demands evidence and baselines before accepting solutions.

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。