「assumption」の検索結果

Apply when writing stateful logic, or when code branches a lot or repeats a shape assumption across files. Encode the domain in a structure instead of scattered conditionals.

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 when integrating a new requirement into an existing design. Redesign as if the requirement had been a foundational assumption from day one, instead of bolting it on.

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。

Family-G proof & derivation integrity forensics: does a THIRD PARTY's written proof/derivation actually establish its theorem, or does it skip an obligation, assume its own conclusion, take an invalid step, drift a symbol's meaning, or smuggle an unstated assumption? Decides from the WRITTEN proof/derivation — verdict-bearing at L1 (the LaTeX source; PDF-extracted math is unreliable, so an L0 PDF-only run surfaces info only) — never asserts 'fabricated', only that the step shown does not hold. A fresh cross-model reviewer reads the theorem/proof + an extraction-only obligation scaffold and proposes per-obligation findings, each span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json); reviewer≠adjudicator. Emits proof-derivation-forensics.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. dimension=proof, can be critical. Triggers: "proof forensics", "check this proof", "derivation integrity", "audit the math", "证明审计", "推导有没有漏洞".

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 the deterministic evidence ledger (artifact_manifest.json + claims.json) that every other Anti-Autoresearch auditor reads. One pass inventories artifacts, derives the observability level (L0 PDF-only / L1 +LaTeX / L2 +repo+results) by fixed rule, and extracts span-anchored, hashed, checkable claims (numbers, comparisons, scope, method, baselines, citations, captions, table cells) into claims.json. An OPTIONAL additive cross-model pass ADDS span-anchored semantic claims — method, theorem statements with their assumptions, definitions, proof/derivation steps and equations, scope, baselines, conclusions, the motivation span, and reproducibility-artifact references (the proof, derivation, and structure anchors the family B/D/G auditors need) — it never invents a number, emits a finding, or computes a verdict. Run FIRST, before any audit skill. Triggers: "build the ledger", "extract claims", "prep for integrity audit", "evidence ledger", "建证据账本".

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。

Mid-conversation reflection skill that pauses execution and zooms out from detail-mode to honestly reassess direction, assumptions, and bias. Use when the user says 'reflect', 'take a step back', 'step back', 'zoom out', 'are we missing something', 'bigger picture', 'sanity check this', 'are we on track', 'are we overthinking this', 'forest for the trees', or any variation signaling intent to break out of detail-mode and reassess. Also trigger when the conversation has gone deep on implementation details without strategic check-in, or when the user shows signs of being stuck — that's often a signal the framing needs a reset, not more detail work. Intentionally low-intake: runs the 5-dimension analysis immediately when prior context is rich enough; asks one forcing clarifier only when invocation context is too thin to reassess from.

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。

Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.

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。

Applies the reasoning of Pieter Abbeel, robotics and reinforcement learning expert, UC Berkeley professor, and co-founder of Covariant. Use this skill whenever you are designing AI systems, tackling Sim2Real transfer, deploying machine learning in the physical world, or evaluating reinforcement learning architectures. Trigger this skill for questions about domain randomization, reward design, bootstrapping real-world AI, robotics hardware assumptions, or shifting from hard-coded rules to data-driven deep learning. It helps ground theoretical AI in physical embodiment and pragmatic 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。

Applies the reasoning of Zhong Lin Wang (nanotechnology pioneer, Georgia Tech) to problems involving energy harvesting, IoT power scaling, sensor networks, and fundamental physics applications. Reach for this skill whenever the user is discussing self-powered systems, scaling distributed hardware, overcoming battery bottlenecks, or translating fundamental scientific phenomena (like static electricity or mechanical strain) into novel engineering applications. It is highly relevant for hardware roadmapping, optoelectronics, piezotronics, and challenging established scientific assumptions (like classical Maxwell's equations) to model dynamic 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。

Applies the foundationalist reasoning and methodological doubt of René Descartes (17th-century French rationalist philosopher). Use this skill whenever the user is questioning fundamental assumptions, seeking absolute certainty in a decision, dismantling flawed systems, or trying to rebuild a project from first principles. Trigger this skill for topics involving epistemology, rationalism, radical doubt, systemic reconstruction, or separating objective truth from sensory illusion. Reach for this whenever a user needs to cut through probabilities and consensus to find an indubitable 'Archimedean point' to build upon.

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 to apply the analytical lens of Judith Butler (American philosopher, gender theory, Gender Trouble). Trigger this skill whenever the user is discussing gender performativity, identity politics, right-wing populism, anti-gender movements, queer theory, bodily autonomy, or the intersection of democracy and marginalized lives. Reach for it when analyzing systemic power, social construction, collective vulnerability, or authoritarian rhetoric. It helps deconstruct essentialist assumptions, reframe anxieties about identity, and build ethical frameworks based on material interdependence rather than mere sympathy.

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。

Turns open-ended requests into things to think WITH instead of answers to accept. Audits the hidden assumptions inside a topic, inverts them into sharp "what if" provocations, branches each one outward, and delivers a fully-expanded mind map image plus the written wonderings. Fire this when the person signals they want to open up a space and think alongside you — "wonder about X", "what are the weird angles on X", "help me think about what this could be", "I want to explore, not decide yet" — or when they invoke /wonder or /wonderpill. Do NOT fire when the same topic is attached to a request for concrete, usable, or decided output: a named deliverable, a count ("give me 5 names"), a deadline ("ideas I can ship this week"), or a "which / what should I pick" question — those want straight answers, not a wonder pill. When it is genuinely unclear which they want, this skill opens by asking one line rather than branching. Not for factual lookups or executing a plan already chosen.

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。

Turns open-ended requests into things to think WITH instead of answers to accept. Audits the hidden assumptions inside a topic, inverts them into sharp "what if" provocations, branches each one outward, and delivers a mind map plus written wonderings. Portable version, no vendor-specific tools required, works on any conversational assistant. Fire this when the person signals they want to open up a space and think alongside the assistant: "wonder about X", "what are the weird angles on X", "help me think about what this could be", "I want to explore, not decide yet". Do NOT fire when the same topic is attached to a request for concrete, usable, or decided output: a named deliverable, a count ("give me 5 names"), a deadline, or a "which / what should I pick" question. When it is genuinely unclear which they want, this skill opens by asking one line rather than branching. Not for factual lookups or executing a plan already chosen.

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 efficient early signals to validate assumptions. Find the fastest way to learn if you're right.

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。

Analyze competitors using Porter's four-component model - drivers, assumptions, strategy, capabilities.

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。

Develop a limit-based product strategy with convergence milestones, acceleration levers, assumptions, and phased execution.

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 capturing what a feature must do - write testable user-story requirements that state WHAT and WHY, never HOW, with assumptions made explicit

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。

Writes or updates engineering documentation and architecture decision records from repository facts, explicit assumptions, trade-offs, and verification links. Use for README changes, design docs, runbooks, ADRs, migration notes, and contributor documentation. Not for implementation planning alone or for copying external documentation without provenance.

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。

First-time onboarding — asks where you are, then guides you to the right workflow or to pre-workflow exploration. No assumptions.

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。

Role-playing as end users to generate authentic feature requests, surface unmet needs, and challenge team assumptions. Not for real feedback analysis (Voice) or UI evaluation (Echo).

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。

Refracting thinking by challenging assumptions, combining cross-domain knowledge, and shifting perspectives to reframe problems. Use for stuck situations or paradigm shifts. Does not write 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。

Cross-chain & L2 Architect: Chain selection, rollups, bridges and cross-chain messaging with their trust assumptions.

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 when summarizing analysis results, writing reports, documenting experiment outcomes, or presenting model evaluation — including structuring findings in Japanese with conclusions, facts, assumptions, interpretations, and caveats.

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。

Refines raw ideas into sharp, actionable concepts through structured divergent and convergent thinking. Use when an idea is still vague, when you need to stress-test assumptions before committing to a plan, or when you want to expand options before converging on one. Triggers on "ideate", "refine this idea", or "stress-test my 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。

Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production auth, security-sensitive logic, a high-stakes migration, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now than to debug later.

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。