3.4万 件 ・ 関連度順
Use when designing a Spark feature or writing or materially revising a design proposal that needs repository-first research, user input on unresolved key choices, and an owner-aligned implementation plan before code 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。
Use when adding or updating Spark AI provider models or their compact and preflight metrics, especially baidu-oneapi, Grok, Claude, GPT, DeepSeek, OneAPI, context windows, output budgets, prices, thinking maps, or transports.
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 before a tag, GitHub release, or Zenodo archive, when README, CATALOG, CHANGELOG, CITATION.cff, the disclosure aggregate, and skill discovery must agree, or when a go or no-go release verdict needs recorded evidence behind it.
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 paired tr.md and en.md files need a parity verdict, when titles, frontmatter, headings, or DOI sets may have drifted between languages, or when a bilingual document is approaching release and its translation coverage needs an audit.
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 automating research session rituals in Claude Code with hooks, such as session-start context injection, daily research logging, session-end persistence, or pre-commit guards that block secrets and unverified citations.
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 reviewer comments arrive and each one needs a tracked decision, when a revise and resubmit letter must map every comment to a manuscript change, or when contradictory reviewer demands need evidence-based, editor-facing 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 sources must stay traceable across sessions and years, when each reference needs a passport recording where it was found, how it was verified, and where it is cited, or when a draft needs a cited-but-unverified sweep before 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 designing a course, assessment, or student-feedback workflow and deciding where AI assistance is acceptable, when grading or feedback must stay within academic-integrity and FERPA/KVKK boundaries, or when AI-use rules for students need stating.
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 draft in Turkish, English, or both reads as AI-generated and needs revision that removes machine writing patterns and translation calques while preserving meaning, citations, statistics, and the author's voice.
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 selecting a statistical test with AI consultation, when assumptions need checking against the actual data, when an analysis plan or decision log must be written before running anything, or when results need APA-style reporting with effect sizes.
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 researcher asks where to start, which project skill fits the current stage of a study, or in what order literature scoping, source access, vault upkeep, drafting, citation verification, disclosure, and review response should run.
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 research proposal needs work packages, milestones, deliverables, a timeline, a risk register, and budget-justification scaffolding, while keeping scientific claims and feasibility honest and human-owned.
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 research note system needs architecture, when MOCs, frontmatter standards, and retrieval patterns must be designed for years of work, or when an existing vault has outgrown its structure and must migrate without breaking years of links.
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 construct, scale, or key term crosses Turkish and English and conceptual equivalence must be audited: translation and back-translation, construct drift, and culturally bound meaning, before measurement or cross-cultural 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。
Use when authoring a new manuscript, thesis chapter, or abstract from scratch in Turkish and English in parallel — building the claim skeleton first, then drafting Turkish and re-authoring English — not for auditing parity between existing versions.
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 high-stakes analysis, citation set, or decision should be checked by a second independent AI agent that verifies rather than decides, or when disagreement between agents must be surfaced for the human to adjudicate.
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 reference list needs APA 7 cleanup, when DOIs must be confirmed real against Crossref or PubMed, when the user asks whether AI-suggested citations actually exist, or when a manuscript needs a citation hygiene pass before submission or defense.
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 authorship order, CRediT contribution roles, or AI-assistance attribution must be recorded transparently for a manuscript, when an author dispute needs an evidence trail, or before a contributorship statement is required at submission; this skill maintains the human-attribution ledger of who contributed what and in which role (authorship order, CRediT taxonomy, revision responsibilities), which is distinct from the disclosure-metadata audit owned by ai-disclosure-auditor.
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 complete research workflow — its instructions, skills, data boundaries, and tool connections — must be assessed for portability across AI agents or environments, so each component is explicitly mapped before migration rather than assumed to transfer.
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 choosing a journal for a finished or nearly finished manuscript, when index status in Scopus, SSCI, ESCI, or TR Dizin must be confirmed, when a venue looks predatory, or when a cover letter needs drafting from the manuscript's actual 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。
Use when a systematic, scoping, or rapid review needs a reproducible pipeline: protocol framing (PICO/SPIDER/PCC), a logged search string, title/abstract and full-text screening with recorded exclusion reasons, and PRISMA flow counts, with the human as the deciding screener.
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 an ethics committee or IRB application involves AI anywhere in the pipeline, when KVKK, GDPR, or EU AI Act duties must be mapped to a study, or when consent and disclosure language about AI use needs drafting before 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。
Deauthentication and disassociation attacks against 802.11 networks — targeted single-client deauth for handshake capture, broadcast deauth for DoS (with authorization), action-frame attacks bypassing 802.11w (PMF), beacon flooding, mdk4 / aireplay-ng tooling, and rate-limit / PMF-aware operation. Use to coerce client reconnection (handshake capture, evil-twin roaming), as targeted DoS, or to test PMF posture.
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。
KRACK (CVE-2017-13077..082) and FragAttacks (CVE-2020-24586..588 + 26139-26147) — key reinstallation, fragmentation, and aggregation attacks against WPA2 supplicants. Covers Vanhoef's test scripts, viability against modern patched stacks (mostly mitigated post-2021), residual unpatched embedded devices and IoT vendors, and the practical limitations of these attacks in modern engagements. Use when assessing legacy supplicants, embedded clients, or vendors with poor patch cadence.
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。