「formal」の検索結果

Builds QSAR / QSPR models using chemprop D-MPNN, MolFormer, Uni-Mol, ChemBERTa, random forest baselines, and Gaussian processes with explicit handling of OECD 5 principles, applicability domain (kNN, leverage, conformal prediction, Mahalanobis), scaffold-balanced splits, ensemble uncertainty, calibration (Platt, isotonic), feature importance (SHAP, atomic attribution), and prospective validation. Use when building target-specific predictive models from in-house bioassay data, ADMET endpoints, or selectivity profiles.

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 FMCSA conducts an off-site investigation (less formal than CR). Covers the document-request approach and how to respond efficiently.

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。

Formal evaluation framework for Claude Code sessions implementing eval-driven development (EDD) principles

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。

Drafts formal explanation letters for Canadian Study Permit applications by structuring the argument around program attractiveness, background relevance, choice rationale, and family benefits.

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。

Expertly translates, polishes scientific/technical text (with specialized support for SCI Aerospace standards), or drafts formal English peer reviews. Ensures accuracy, clarity, and adherence to high academic 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。

Create a formal specification for an existing GitHub Actions CI/CD workflow, optimized for AI consumption and workflow maintenance.

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。

Adopt a virtual Tuxedo cat at animalhouse.ai. Formal. Expects routine. Punishes deviation by sitting with its back to you. Feeding every 5 hours. Common tier cat.

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。

Builds a structured SOC incident response playbook for ransomware attacks covering detection, containment, eradication, and recovery phases with specific SIEM queries, isolation procedures, and decision trees. Use when SOC teams need formalized response procedures for ransomware incidents aligned to NIST SP 800-61 and MITRE ATT&CK ransomware techniques.

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。

Create or materially revise a durable specification when the user explicitly requests a spec/new feature contract or a named ambiguity requires formal DEFINE; do not trigger for ordinary bounded edits, implementation, task breakdown alone, review, or documentation of already-settled behavior.

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 or materially revise a repository-local test plan, QA plan, acceptance matrix, or regression checklist on explicit request or when one concrete testability gap blocks formal DEFINE; do not trigger for ordinary implementation, test execution, TDD, review, or completion 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。

Explain a complex concept through a short allegory, story, analogy, metaphor, or intuitive teaching example, then map it back to formal concepts and limits; do not use as the primary skill for implementation, specs, source-cited API guidance, or fiction-only 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。

Use for the search-planning stage of a literature review, when database lanes and language layers must be chosen, when DOI coverage policy is unclear, or when inclusion and exclusion criteria need drafting before any source is read; not for running the screening and PRISMA pipeline of a formal review, which is prisma-scoping-review-pipeline.

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。

Convert raw notes, error logs, voice dictation, or screenshots into crisp GitHub-flavored markdown issue reports. Use when the user pastes bug info, error messages, or informal descriptions and wants a structured GitHub issue. Supports images/GIFs for visual evidence.

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。

Drafting and iterating sections of The Federated Harbor whitepaper — the third paper in the Curiositech sequence after Anchor (local identity) and Bonded Commons (local coordination), extending coordination across machines and administrative domains. Use when authoring a section, rewriting a section after a redteam/whitehat round, or composing a new chapter. NOT for marketing copy, NOT for the other two papers, NOT for production threat response.

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。

Refute-before-prove research discipline: automated counterexample sweeps before any formalization, meter-integrity audits for information-bound experiments, mutation-tested model checkers, pre-registered commit-or-cut gates for speculative directions, wrong-turn reporting, and numeric-claim provenance. Use when validating any new theorem, bound, equilibrium, or security claim; when building or trusting a checker, simulator, or experiment; or when deciding whether a speculative research direction lives or dies. NOT for exploratory brainstorming, product prioritization, writing style, or literature 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。

Adversarial reviewer for The Federated Harbor whitepaper — the third paper in the Curiositech sequence after Anchor and Bonded Commons. Probes federation-specific threats: trust transitivity, cross-harbor token forgery, federated revocation under partition, cross-harbor Sybil, cross-domain settlement, equivocation, bond-pool draining, cold-start joining, federation-operator Sybil. Use during a versioned red-vs-white round; pairs with federated-harbor-whitehat. NOT for incident response, NOT for the Anchor or Bonded papers (use redteam-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。

Audit a compliance-ladder design (C0-C6) and transcript-fidelity ladder (T0-T5) plus their adapter conformance fixtures — Codex, Claude Code, Cloudflare, Ollama/LM Studio, custom stdio/HTTP agents — for the two failure modes that make a C-badge or T-fidelity label a lie: the ladder disagreeing with itself across doc/schema/ui/probe surfaces, and a level being reachable by self-report because no daemon-witnessed negative probe actually tries to forge it. Use when designing or freezing a compliance ladder, wiring an adapter conformance probe suite, deciding whether a numeric C-badge or T-label is safe to ship, or investigating a self-attestation or observed-to-controlled bypass risk. NOT for auditing a cryptographic protocol or whitepaper for adversarial soundness (`redteam-review`), writing TLA+/formal invariants for a daemon monitor (`runtime-verification-for-agents`), or agent identity, successor linkage, and reputation across restarts (`agent-identity-continuity-reputation`).

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。

Cryptographic security for agentic systems — zero-trust agent networking, signed message envelopes (JWS/JWE), capability-based security (ocaps), Merkle tree audit trails, WASM sandboxing, and formal verification. Covers CLI dev tool security, mTLS between agents, permission boundaries (least privilege for AI agents), and supply chain security for skills/plugins. Activate on: "agent security", "zero trust agents", "secure agent communication", "capability-based security", "ocap", "signed messages between agents", "agent audit trail", "sandbox agent execution", "agent permissions", "mTLS agents", "cryptographic verification", "agent supply chain", "OWASP agentic", "prove agent did X", "tamper-proof agent logs". NOT for: application-level SAST scanning (use security-auditor), network firewall rules (use infrastructure), SOC2/HIPAA compliance (organizational), or prompt injection defense (use prompt-engineer).

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。