「verdict」の検索結果

Suede AI eval design and coverage audit: AI-SPEC, failure-mode rubric with severity scoring, concrete pass/fail eval cases, coverage and infrastructure scores, and mechanical acceptance gates. Use when a change ships LLM, RAG, agent, classifier, prompt, or generated-media behavior, or when asked to write evals for an AI feature, design test cases for a model surface, audit existing eval coverage, or judge whether AI behavior is safe to ship. No AI-SPEC means no eval plan, and no eval plan holds the recommended ship verdict. NOT FOR: reviewing or grading the implementation code behind the AI surface (use suede-code); wiring a passing suite into CI as a required check (use suede-ci-gate); UAT of the built feature beyond the eval suite (a private Suede Labs companion, not in this pack).

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。

Suede AI combined code review and ship grade in one pass: findings with file:line evidence plus an A-F lane grade, Instant-F security triggers, OWASP checks, a deploy-safety gate, and fix briefs. Use when asked to review this, grade this, security-check this, is this safe to ship, or check this PR before merge: whenever the caller wants both what is wrong and whether it ships. Runs only when explicitly invoked; never auto-fires on a diff, save, or commit. NOT FOR: findings only with accessibility and SEO lanes (use suede-code-review); the letter grade alone (use suede-code-grader); making CI enforce the verdict on merge (use suede-ci-gate); LLM, RAG, or agent behavior coverage (use suede-ai-eval).

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。

Не для обхода детекторов; не для текста, который тебе не принадлежит. Находит следы машинного текста в русском и объясняет их; переписывает только по явной просьбе; вердиктов об авторстве нет. Отвечает на просьбы вида «очеловечь», «убери гпт-шность», «звучит как нейросеть», «проверь на ИИ», «убери штампы», «убери канцелярит», «сделай живым», «вставка из чата», «копипаста из ChatGPT», contentReference, utm_source, невидимые символы, машинная типографика (40 regex-маркеров, у 38 полная запись доказательств). Finds machine-text traces in Russian and explains them; rewrites only on explicit request; no authorship detection verdict. Английский профиль: только артефакты/факты; исходный код не обрабатывается; юридические и художественные тексты — только детерминированная очистка артефактов. Демо: vladimir-human.github.io/humanizer-ru

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 wants to know if something works — the answer requires running code, not analyzing it. Output is a verdict backed by evidence: passed, failed, or broken. Primary triggers: 'run the tests', 'does X still work after my change?', 'did the merge break anything?', 'verify the fix worked', 'check if the endpoint returns X', 'confirm nothing regressed', 'run tests/unit/test_foo.py', 'let me know the results', 'make sure my changes didn't break anything'. Hard stops — do NOT use for: reviewing test code for quality/coverage gaps, debugging why test infrastructure/databases/seed scripts are misbehaving, writing or fixing tests, diagnosing root causes of unexpected behavior. The deciding question: is the user asking for the result of executing something, or asking for help understanding/analyzing/improving something? If it's the latter, use diagnose or review-code 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。

Generate structured 8-section validation reports with verdict (GOOD/BAD/NEEDS MAJOR WORK), strengths, critical flaws, blindspots, and concrete path forward. Use after strategic-cto-mentor has completed validation analysis and needs to produce final deliverable.

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 a task is in code_review - how to read the diff, which findings block, and the verdict move

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 you need the end-to-end merge -> deploy -> watch -> verdict sequence for a delivery mode, or a tool result you did not expect (refusal, park, tag exists)

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 a release reaches awaiting_verdict (or you are woken for an incident) - how to read runtime logs, error groups, health and smoke evidence for the release's component and decide finish, re-check, roll back or hand to a human

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 a batch (desktop or mobile) release reaches awaiting_verdict or was rolled back - read-only checks that the published artifact really exists and is served, and the exact yank step for a bad tag

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 a task is in pm_uat - verify every acceptance criterion and the human's comments yourself in the browser, on a device, or over a loopback HTTP request, record a verdict per criterion, then move to human_uat or need_revision

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 after explicit Codex `$superloopy:superloopy-research` or Claude Code `/superloopy:superloopy-research` invocation, a research task started with a leading `loopy` or `루피` (such as `loopy research`), or an active Superloopy loop explicitly routing a research deliverable here. Evidence-backed Superloopy research orchestration with automatic advisory usage targets, parallel read-only lanes, per-retrieval verdicts, graded and dated sources, empirical verification, a priced claim ledger, cited synthesis, and optional reports. Do not activate from research, investigate, look-up, summarize, deep-dive, report, or similar vocabulary alone, in any language; ordinary questions, debugging, and implementation context-gathering stay with their primary workflows.

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。

Reusable writing-style contract for agent outputs (reports, ARCH docs, verdicts, threat models). Forces direct prose with concrete evidence, no marketing voice, no hedge words. The single most-referenced skill across the pipeline — used by 28 agents.

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。

Reusable reporting contract for any agent that hands work back to the pipeline. Forces ONE of two terminal statuses (DONE or BLOCKED) with a specific evidence shape. Stops vague "probably finished" and "kind of stuck" verdicts.

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。

Shared review framework that every domain reviewer (pci, oracle, gov, edtech, healthcare, mlops, etc.) MUST follow. Defines the output artifact (TM-{slug}.md), mandatory sections, severity scale, verdict format, the workflow scaffold (when-invoked, Step-0 read-inputs, HANDOFF), and the "domain heuristic vs generic check" boundary. Eliminates duplication across the ~30 reviewer prompts.

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。

Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of ~4 extra LLM turns.

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 this skill when the user wants intellectual understanding — learning how or why something works, not getting a task done or soliciting Claude's judgment. Trigger for: - Explicit learning requests: teach, explain, ELI5, walk me through, quiz me, flashcards, "I'm rusty on"; definitions ("what is X") - Terse concept names implying "help me understand this": "Galois theory," "transformers, from scratch" - Confusion signals: "won't stick," "keep mixing these up," "not getting it" - Learning-path questions: prerequisites, sequencing, what to study before X - Conceptual questions about mechanisms, causes, or dynamics Don't trigger for: - Tasks: coding, writing, calculation, translation, factual lookup, news updates - Personal troubleshooting; resource/textbook recommendations - Claude's evaluative verdict: opinion prompts ("do you think X", "settle this", "honest take", "is X dead / still taken seriously") and interpretive takes ("was X really as harsh as people say")

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。

Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict with specific gaps.

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。

Validate that a story file is implementation-ready. Checks for embedded GDD requirements, ADR references, engine notes, clear acceptance criteria, and no open design questions. Produces READY / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED verdict with specific gaps. Use when user says 'is this story ready', 'can I start on this story', 'is story X ready to implement'.

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 review of test files and manual evidence documents. Goes beyond existence checks — evaluates assertion coverage, edge case handling, naming conventions, and evidence completeness. Produces ADEQUATE/INCOMPLETE/MISSING verdict per story. Run before QA sign-off or on demand.

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。

Validate readiness to advance between development phases. Produces a PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL verdict with specific blockers and required artifacts. Use when user says 'are we ready to move to X', 'can we advance to production', 'check if we can start the next phase', 'pass the gate'.

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。

Validates completeness and consistency of the project architecture against all GDDs. Builds a traceability matrix mapping every GDD technical requirement to ADRs, identifies coverage gaps, detects cross-ADR conflicts, verifies engine compatibility consistency across all decisions, and produces a PASS/CONCERNS/FAIL verdict. The architecture equivalent of /design-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。

Deliberating decisions and founder priorities through multi-perspective, named-expert, and YC-style advisory lenses. Use for verdicts, office hours, or expert critique; not implementation.

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。

Implement ReasoningBank adaptive learning with AgentDB's 150x faster vector database. Includes trajectory tracking, verdict judgment, memory distillation, and pattern recognition. Use when building self-learning agents, optimizing decision-making, or implementing experience replay systems.

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 wants to pressure-test a product, internal-tool, or OSS concept against Amazon's Working Backwards PRFAQ gauntlet before committing to a spec. Triggers on: "work backwards", "write a PRFAQ", "press release first", "is this idea worth building", "pressure-test this concept", "filter this before brainstorm", "is this a real product". Also catches solution-first pitches ("I want to build X that does Y") and technology-first pitches ("use AI to...") that need customer-first filtering. Produces a binary pass/fail verdict, not a polished doc. Hardcore coaching — direct, skeptical, concrete. On pass, hands off to brainstorm-beagle with a concept brief. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, scaffold projects, or draft specs.

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。