3,267 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Structured literature search + synthesis with citation extraction, thematic clustering, and gap identification. Use when user says "find papers on X", "do a lit review", "what's the literature on...", "summarize what we know about...", "where's the gap in this field", "review recent work on Y". Produces a written review with BibTeX-ready citations. Uses WebSearch/WebFetch for recent work.
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。
Japanese (and other non-Hollywood) screenwriting methods (日本编剧方法/原创剧本实战) — distilled from ten Japanese directors and writers in ゼロからの脚本術; Kosawa Ryota (three acts as 起承转合, speed by jumping), Uchida Kenji (beautiful structure, time-axis tricks), Miki Satoshi (small-material notebook, theme emerges later), Sono Sion, Omiya Ellie (dialogue from inner monologue), Kakei Masaya ("if + moreover"), Fukuda Yuichi (character = actor + flaw, audience as tsukkomi), Yokohama Satoko, Takahashi Izumi ("pain"), Yukisada Isao (situation-born originals); plus Arai Haruhiko (IP adaptation, "write what you're ashamed of"). Neighbours; sw-korean-french-screenwriting, ozu-screenplay-style. Use when writing an original Japanese-style script or TV drama, working from small material and fragments, choosing between structure-first and character-first methods, building a Japanese 企画書, designing comedy tsukkomi systems, or when Hollywood models feel wrong for a quiet, daily-life, non-goal-driven story.
How episodic television actually gets made by a group (编剧室与制作现实) — merged from Goldberg & Rabkin (pitch as audition, leave-behind, cracking the story, beat sheet, notes discipline, production rewrites), Pamela Douglas (John Wells's room, staff-from-hell mistakes, the seven-rung ladder, step deal, the 14-day draft), Neil Landau's showrunner interviews (Lindelof, Mazzara, Katims, Bays), Evan Smith on sitcom staffing and roundtables, Richard Blum (dated), Kam Miller, and first-hand accounts by David Chase, Jesse Armstrong, Lucy Prebble, Aaron Sorkin, Julian Fellowes and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Use when joining or running a writers' room, breaking an episode with a group, writing a leave-behind, beat sheet or outline on deadline, pitching episode ideas to an existing series, writing a spec episode, taking or giving notes, rewriting because of money, actors or locations, choosing between a staffed room and a single-author process, or asking 什么是 showrunner／编剧室怎么运作／怎么接 note.
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 a real brainstorm — divergent generation without judgment, then convergent selection with explicit criteria — instead of listing ten obvious ideas and calling it creativity. Use when asked to brainstorm, generate ideas or options, explore a solution space, or name something. Produces a genuinely wide option set (including the weird tail), then a shortlist selected against named criteria with the rejects preserved.
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 performance fairly when output is AI-assisted — what still measures the human, what now measures the tooling, and how to run the review conversation. Use when reviewing someone whose work is heavily AI-assisted, when output volume stopped meaning anything, when calibrating a team with uneven AI adoption, or when writing review criteria for the AI era. Produces review guidance: a what-measures-whom analysis, rewritten criteria, calibration rules for mixed-adoption teams, and conversation scripts. For the general review document use performance-review; for redesigning the role itself use role-redesign-for-ai.
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。
Hire an AI agent the way you'd hire an employee — a role spec with success criteria, a structured work-sample interview run on your real tasks, reference checks (what do actual users report), probation KPIs, and termination criteria written before day one. Use when choosing between AI agents/tools/copilots for a job, formalizing an AI pilot, or 'which agent should we use for X'. Produces the role spec, interview pack with scoring rubric, a decision record, and a probation plan.
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。
Search academic literature and generate, validate, or compare Knows paper sidecars. Use for claim/evidence analysis and literature synthesis.
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 positioning an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a four-field contribution. AA readers span sociocultural, archaeology, biological, and linguistic anthropology, so the paper must engage the conversations they expect and decenter a US/Anglophone-only canon. Stakes the contribution and citational politics; it does not write the lit 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 positioning the contribution of an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript against the closest published work in one or two tight paragraphs. Stakes the gap concisely; it does not write the full literature review (there is no room for one).
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 contribution of an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) manuscript relative to the macro frontier is fuzzy, contested, or undersold. Frames the marginal contribution against quantitative-theory and identified-empirical literatures; it does not fix the identification or the model 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 placing the contribution against the policy-evaluation literature and sharpening it as a policy answer for an AEJ: Economic Policy manuscript. Stakes the contribution and the policy-relevant "so what"; it does not write the full introduction or design the identification.
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 building or repairing the literature review for 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) — entering the accounting research lineage (earnings quality, conservatism, audit quality, disclosure, value relevance) rather than piling recent Chinese empirical citations, and positioning the gap as an accounting contribution.
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 must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it "challenges and extends" that conversation. Positions the argument within a literature; it does NOT summarize the field (AMR punishes review-essays) and does NOT build the new theory (that is amr-theory-development).
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 situating an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript in the literature — entering one of the journal's own long-running conversations, engaging the interdisciplinary sources (organization theory, sociology, psychology) those conversations draw on, and marking precisely what the paper adds. Positions the argument; it does not build the theory itself (aos-theory-development).
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 building the novel integrative framework that an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review must deliver — the theory-advancing "new way of seeing the field" that is the acceptance bar, not a catalog of papers. Designs the spine; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or appraise evidence balance (amann-evidence-standards).
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 front end of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript needs to engage the right literatures and stake a clear position in an ongoing theoretical conversation. Positions the paper among theories; it does not derive the hypotheses (amj-theory-development) or write the contribution paragraph (amj-contribution-framing).
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 writing the short proposal that gates an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal submitted under the twice-yearly deadlines before any full review is invited. Builds the proposal; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or run the portal preflight (amann-submission).
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 scoping or sanity-checking a research question for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — fit, theory-drivenness, and feasibility. Decides whether the idea can earn a theoretical contribution; it does not build the theory itself (use amj-theory-development) or position the literature (amj-literature-positioning).
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 systematically gathering, coding, and synthesizing a management/organization literature for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the search-and-coverage methodology and the choice of narrative vs. systematic vs. bibliometric integration. Builds the corpus and synthesis notes; it does not impose the organizing spine (amann-organizing-framework) or write prose.
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。
Optimizes Simulink models for Embedded Coder generated code. Use when asked to optimize or improve generated code, or reduce code metrics for a Simulink model. Targets: execution time, memory footprint (RAM, ROM, stack, data copies), code size, MISRA compliance, or any semantically similar generated-code metric. Works iteratively — measures baseline, suggests changes, applies, and re-measures to confirm improvement. Triggers can be prompts similar to: optimize generated code runtime, reduce runtime, shrink code size, improve code efficiency, reduce memory usage, speed up generated code, follow MISRA compliance and so on. CAUTION: Do NOT attempt to optimize Simulink models for generated code efficiency without following this skill — the iterative measurement, gating, and rollback workflow is essential for safe optimization.
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。
Detect distant homologs using profile and structure-aware methods that go beyond standard BLAST. Use when sequence identity falls into the twilight zone (<35% pairwise), when BLAST fails to find homologs that should exist, when working at metagenomic scale (DIAMOND, MMseqs2), or when structure beats sequence (Foldseek). Covers PSI-BLAST (iterative PSSM), jackhmmer (iterative HMM), HHblits/HHsearch (profile-profile), DIAMOND, MMseqs2, and Foldseek (3Di structural alphabet, van Kempen 2024).
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。
Build a differential-ready consensus peakset from per-replicate ATAC-seq peaks using iterative overlap removal, fixed-width re-centering, and majority-rule overlap. Use when generating a stable peak coordinate system for downstream differential accessibility, ML feature engineering, cross-sample comparison, or fixed-width peak counts; covers Corces 2018 iterative overlap (501 bp), DiffBind summit re-centering, and ENCODE consistency rules.
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。
Capture and review Agent Skill observations, and create, run, diagnose, or iteratively improve Skill evaluations (evals) with the skill-up CLI. Use when the user asks to record explicitly attributed Skill usage or feedback; review observations or user-supplied traces/transcripts; turn an approved observation into a regression case; evaluate, test, regress, verify, fix, improve, iterate, or evolve a Skill; add or strengthen eval cases; write eval.yaml/case.yaml; run skill-up run/validate/list-cases/report/import/init; or migrate from Anthropic evals.json. Plugin observation capture/review require either the Codex skill-up plugin or an observer-enabled DSH skill-up plugin. User-supplied external evidence can be reviewed without a plugin; evaluation remains multi-engine.
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。
Set up and run wireless network simulations using the Wireless Network Toolbox. Use this skill when creating system-level simulations with wirelessNetworkSimulator, adding traffic sources (networkTrafficOnOff, networkTrafficFTP, networkTrafficVoIP, networkTrafficVideoConference), configuring node mobility, logging events or IQ samples, visualizing traffic, scheduling actions during simulation, running parametric sweeps, writing PCAP files with pcapWriter or technology-specific PCAP writers, registering event callbacks on wireless nodes, accessing event data fields, or combining multiple capture/visualization tools in a simulation.
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。