「outcome」の検索結果

Use when exposure, outcome, covariate or eligibility definitions and cutoffs need a citable basis before the protocol. Reads the data dictionary first, then maps each variable to a guideline or published definition and the database columns in a citation-backed table.

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 one validated cohort analysis must be repeated across many exposure/outcome pairs. Generates one R/Python script per combination from a single methodology template, changing only the variables, and aggregates the results into a summary matrix.

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。

XML-specified Android UI journey testing, interactive step execution, assertion verification, and JSON outcome reporting.

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。

Triage acc's open promises and close them with honest real-world verdicts via acc_act(runtime="outcome").

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 summarizing agent evaluations where autonomous, assisted, failed, timed-out, or invalid outcomes must remain distinct and comparable.

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 "plan a scene", "scene structure", "sequel scene", "dialogue subtext", "deep POV", "psychic distance", "try fail", "scene cards", "exposition", "info dump", "flashback", "time skip", "story opening", "first page hook", "introduce a character", "scene outcome", "yes-but no-and", "chapter hook", or wants scene-level craft for drafting or revision. NOT for book-level pacing or act structure (use plot-structure), or drafting the prose of a scene or chapter (use chapter-writing).

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 "write a chapter", "next chapter", "chapter outline", "draft chapter", "continue the story", "write a scene", "outline a chapter", or wants to write prose for a story project. NOT for planning a scene's structure, subtext, or outcome (use scene-craft), drafting without an outline (use discovery-drafting), or revising existing chapters (use revision-continuity).

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 "create a plot arc", "story structure", "add a plot point", "story timeline", "track foreshadowing", "pacing", "sagging middle", "act structure", "story arc", "plot outline", "snowflake method", or wants to plan and manage the narrative structure of a story. It owns book-level pacing; NOT for the craft of scene outcomes or chapter hooks, which this skill only plans in the outline (use scene-craft), or a pacing check as a revision pass (use revision-continuity).

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。

Guides the Art. 36 prior consultation process when a DPIA indicates high residual risk that cannot be mitigated. Covers required documentation per Art. 36(3), the 8-week DPA response timeline, outcome management, and interaction protocols with supervisory authorities. Keywords: prior consultation, Art. 36, supervisory authority, DPA, high residual risk, DPIA escalation, consultation documentation.

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。

Guides the GDPR Article 36 prior consultation process with supervisory authorities when a DPIA indicates high residual risk. Covers timeline requirements, documentation, and outcome handling. Activate when DPIA residual risk remains high or when preparing regulatory submissions. Keywords: prior consultation, Article 36, DPIA, high risk, supervisory authority.

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。

Review whether a repository's coding-agent harness can reliably carry work from intent through controlled execution, verification, delivery, and learning. Use when asked to assess agent readiness, repeated agent failures, Rules/Skills/Hooks/Memory effectiveness, missing validation or recovery loops, or whether a harness repair improved later outcomes. Do not use for code-only audits, AGENTS-only audits, individual skill reliability reviews, or executing the task itself.

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 analyzing failures, outages, incidents, or negative outcomes, conducting blameless postmortems, documenting root causes with 5 Whys or fishbone diagrams, identifying corrective actions with owners and timelines, learning from near-misses, establishing prevention strategies, or when user mentions postmortem, incident review, failure analysis, RCA, lessons learned, or after-action 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。

Use when planning with fixed deadline or target outcome, working backward from future goal to present, defining milestones and dependencies, mapping critical path, identifying what must happen when, planning product launches with hard dates, multi-year strategic roadmaps, event planning, transformation initiatives, or when user mentions "backcast", "work backward from", "reverse planning", "we need to launch by", "target date is", or "what needs to happen to reach".

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。

Surfaces Han's shared standard for explaining technical work to a reader who will not implement it into the calling skill's own context, so the caller writes its escalations, confirmation turns, and stops as a concrete outcome the reader could observe rather than as a mechanism. Use when a skill is about to ask a person a question, stop for an input, or explain a technical consequence to someone who will not open the code. Governs what a run says to a person in a turn, where readability-guidance governs the shape of a written deliverable. Runs in the caller's context and hands control straight back; it does not produce a deliverable of its own, rewrite anything, or judge the caller's work. Carries guidance only and adds no self-check step.

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。

Produce a plain-language manual test plan from the context supplied to it — an executive summary, a high-level list of named tests, and a detail section per test with the steps a person follows by hand and the outcomes they should expect. Use when you want to create, draft, generate, or outline a manual test plan, manual QA steps, hands-on verification steps, or an acceptance walkthrough for a feature, change, branch, plan, or PR. When the plan holds more than five tests and at least two natural categories emerge, both the test list and the detail sections are organized under plain-language categories. When nothing in the supplied context can be manually tested, it says so and asks for more context instead of producing a document. Does not analyze code for automated test coverage gaps — use automated-test-planning. Does not write test code — use tdd. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-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。

Test web applications end-to-end by simulating user interactions and verifying expected outcomes. Trigger when the user asks to: test a web app, verify a user flow, run end-to-end tests, QA a feature, check that a page works correctly, validate user journeys, or test a deployment.

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。

TRIGGER THIS when building DEI strategy, creating diversity goals, designing inclusive programs, building equity analyses, developing training, addressing inclusion issues, or tracking DEI metrics. Develops comprehensive diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies aligned to business goals with measurable outcomes, training programs, metrics frameworks, and accountability 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 is closing an ISO week, reviewing planned outcomes against evidence, interviewing work Areas, resolving unfinished commitments, or asking for "ретро", "weekly retro", "week review", or lessons from the week.

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 completed department retro should become accepted outcomes and a full living ISO-week plan, or the user asks "планирование", "план недели", or "что делаем на следующей неделе".

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。

When handing work to the Codex CLI earns its cost, and how to size the run: second-model review, bounded implementation hand-offs, sandbox permissions, model and reasoning effort. Use when the user asks for Codex or `codex exec`, when a change is complex or high-stakes enough that an independent reviewer would change the outcome, or when a delegated run needs its model, effort, or permissions chosen. For agents other than Codex itself.

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。

Think and work like an expert Causal Inference Scientist. Use when a task calls for Causal Inference Scientist judgment. Reasons from structural causal models, potential outcomes, and identification logic through DAGs and do-calculus, doubly-robust estimators (AIPW/TMLE, IPTW, g-formula), and design-based methods (IV, RD, Callaway-Sant'Anna DiD, synthetic control) while treating colliders and M-bias, positivity/overlap failure, and unmeasured confounding (Rosenbaum bounds, E-values) as first-class failure modes.

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。

Grounded in first principles, rigorously examine and refine a user's plan, task, decision, goal, strategy, proposal, or idea through structured, progressively deeper questioning, in order to bridge the gap between the User and the Agent. Use when the user explicitly requests grilling, challenge, pressure-testing, cross-examination, red-team review, pre-mortem analysis, or a decision audit. The goal is to uncover unclear objectives, hidden assumptions, contradictions, weak evidence, missing information, overlooked constraints, dependencies, risks, trade-offs, failure modes, and misalignment between intended outcomes and likely real-world results. Begin by establishing a shared understanding of the user's actual intent, goals, constraints, and success criteria. Ask focused, high-leverage questions rather than broad or repetitive ones. Adapt each question based on previous answers, probing deeper where uncertainty, unsupported assumptions, or strategic weaknesses remain. Regularly summarize the current understanding of the user's intent and position to confirm alignment, expose misunderstandings, and refine the problem or goal definition. Distinguish facts, assumptions, hypotheses, and unknowns. Challenge reasoning rigorously while remaining constructive, respectful, and solution-oriented. Continue until the reasoning is internally coherent, evidence-aware, constraint-conscious, risk-assessed, and translated into a clearer, more actionable goal, decision, or plan. Ultimately, achieving the super-alignment.

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。

Quantifies CRISPR editing outcomes with CRISPResso2 (Clement 2019 Nat Biotechnol) across Cas9-nuclease (indels, HDR), CBE and ABE base editors (target conversion + bystander), and prime editor (pegRNA-templated) modes. Covers single-amplicon (CRISPResso), multi-sample batch (CRISPRessoBatch), pooled-amplicon (CRISPRessoPooled), WGS off-target (CRISPRessoWGS), and sample-comparison (CRISPRessoCompare) workflows; quantification-window math that controls what is called edited; substitution-vs-indel diagnostic to distinguish BE from Cas9 contamination; MMEJ deletion pattern interpretation; allele-frequency tables; and failure modes from amplicon misalignment or contamination. Use when quantifying editing from amplicon sequencing, choosing CRISPResso mode by design, distinguishing intended edits from bystanders and indel byproducts, debugging low-alignment runs, or generating publication-grade editing reports.

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。

Design guides for cytosine and adenine base editing using editing window optimization and BE-Hive outcome prediction. Select optimal positions for C-to-T or A-to-G conversions without double-strand breaks. Use when designing base editor experiments for precise nucleotide changes.

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。