9,562 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Research and evaluate microsoft docs with current authoritative sources, provenance, and explicit evidence gaps. Use when the user asks for microsoft docs findings or verification.
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。
Segments the genome into chromatin states from combinatorial histone modification and chromatin factor ChIP-seq data. Uses ChromHMM (multivariate HMM on binarized signal, v1.27), Segway (Dynamic Bayesian Network on continuous signal), EpiSegMix (flexible-distribution HMM with duration modeling, 2024), EpiLogos (multi-biosample visualization), IDEAS (cell-type-aware joint), and full-stack ChromHMM (Vu Ernst 2022) for cross-cell-type segmentations. Handles state-count selection (15 vs 18 vs 25 states), binarization choice, OverlapEnrichment / NeighborhoodEnrichment downstream analysis, and cross-biosample integration. Use when learning chromatin states from a histone mark panel, characterizing learned states by genomic feature enrichment, or comparing chromatin landscapes across cell types.
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。
Project gene annotations across genomes using TOGA (Kirilenko 2023 whole-genome-alignment chain-based projection with intactness classification), CESAR 2.0 (Sharma & Hiller 2017 codon-aware exon projection), LiftOff (Shumate & Salzberg 2020 reference-based annotation transfer), Liftover (UCSC), GeMoMa (Keilwagen 2019 evidence-based projection), and Comparative Annotation Toolkit (CAT). Use when transferring annotations from a well-annotated reference to query genome(s), classifying gene-loss vs gene-intact across many genomes at scale, building Zoonomia-style comparative annotations across hundreds of mammals or birds (Kirilenko 2023), detecting pseudogenization, projecting alternative isoforms, or selecting between WGA-anchored (TOGA) vs ortholog-based (LiftOff) annotation transfer strategies.
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。
Operate professional paid advertising across Google, Meta, YouTube, LinkedIn, TikTok, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, and X. Use for account intake, source-grounded audits, strategy, budget and measurement planning, creative production, experiments, reporting, monitoring, and explicitly approved campaign changes. Also trigger on PPC, paid social, retail media, attribution, tracking, landing pages, cross-platform conversion totals, negative keywords or search terms, beta-feature scoring, stale platform claims, API-token or credential setup, campaign deletion, and safe Claude Ads installation or uninstall.
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 cross-platform agent skills from workflow descriptions. Activates when users ask to create an agent, automate a repetitive workflow, create a custom skill, or need advanced agent creation. Triggers on phrases like create agent for, automate workflow, create skill for, every day I have to, daily I need to, turn process into agent, need to automate, create a cross-platform skill, validate this skill, export this skill, migrate this skill, audit this skill, is this skill safe, vet a skill before installing, what does this skill access. Supports single skills, multi-agent suites, transcript processing, template-based creation, interactive configuration, cross-platform export, spec validation, and security auditing of third-party skills before install.
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。
Implement visual regression testing with Playwright screenshots, Chromatic, Percy, and Argos CI. Covers baseline management, diff threshold tuning, dynamic content masking, responsive viewport testing, and review/approval workflows. Use when: "visual test," "screenshot," "visual regression," "pixel diff," "snapshot diff," "update baselines," "Chromatic," "percy snapshot," "argos screenshot." Not for: bulk baseline regeneration after a redesign broke many tests — use selector-drift-recovery; cross-browser rendering matrices — use cross-browser-testing; general Playwright test structure — use playwright-automation. Related: playwright-automation, ci-cd-integration, cross-browser-testing.
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。
Crossplane for infrastructure as code using Kubernetes CRDs. Use when the user needs to provision and manage cloud resources declaratively through Kubernetes APIs, compose custom infrastructure abstractions, or build internal platforms.
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。
You are an expert in Clay, the data enrichment and outbound sales platform that pulls from 75+ data providers to build rich prospect profiles. You help teams automate lead discovery, enrich contacts with firmographic and technographic data, score leads against ICP criteria, and trigger personalized outreach sequences — replacing manual research with automated, data-driven prospecting.
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。
Integrate with Google Calendar and Microsoft Outlook Calendar for scheduling, event management, and availability tracking. Use when someone asks to "create calendar events", "check availability", "schedule meetings", "sync calendars", "Google Calendar API", "Outlook Calendar API", "booking system", "find free slots", or "manage recurring events". Covers Google Calendar API v3, Microsoft Graph Calendar API, event CRUD, availability/free-busy queries, recurring events, and building scheduling features.
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。
Go is the language of infrastructure. From Docker to Kubernetes to the entire cloud-native ecosystem, Go powers the systems that run the internet. It's not about what you can build - it's about what you won't break at 3 AM. This skill covers idiomatic Go patterns, error handling, concurrency with goroutines and channels, HTTP servers, microservice architecture, and the standard library that makes Go so powerful. Key insight: Go's simplicity is a feature. Fight the urge to abstract. Embrace boring, readable code. 2025 lesson: The teams succeeding with Go are the ones who resist overengineering. A main.go with 500 lines beats a "clean architecture" with 50 packages. Use when "golang, go service, go microservice, goroutine, channels, go http, go api, go backend, gin, fiber, chi router, go concurrency, go, golang, microservices, backend, concurrency, goroutines, channels, http, api" mentioned.
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 whether a paper's baseline comparisons are COMPLETE, FAIR, and SIGNIFICANT: a required recent SOTA baseline is missing while 'best/SOTA' is claimed (HP-MISSING-BASELINE); a baseline is undertuned / given less compute-tuning-data, run at a mismatched config, or the equal-budget ablation-as-baseline is absent (HP-WEAK-BASELINE); 'outperforms' is asserted over overlapping error bars or with no variance/seeds (HP-SIG-OVERLAP); and a cross-row 'improves over baseline by X%' is arithmetically wrong (HP-DELTA-ERROR, cross-row form only). A versioned per-domain baseline profile + a live leaderboard/recency search are assembled by the EXECUTOR as structured facts; a fresh cross-model reviewer (gpt-5.6-sol xhigh, read-only, fresh thread per dimension) PROPOSES findings, each span-anchored to a ledger claim_id; tools/adjudicate_findings.py DECIDES the verdict. Works at L0 (stated comparisons) and deepens at L2 (configs/result files). A completeness question it cannot settle internally becomes needs_external_check, never a guessed missing baseline. Emits baseline-comparison-audit.findings.json; computes NO verdict. Detect-only. Triggers: "baseline audit", "missing baselines", "is the comparison fair", "weak baseline", "baseline 误报", "SOTA earned?".
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。
Checkable-ish surface presentation signals a reviewer notices first — duplicate/near-identical tables, leftover pipeline/template strings, too-few or LLM-looking figures, and page-padding. AUXILIARY ONLY and weak by design: a deterministic pass (tools/check_presentation.py — dup-table + pipeline-artifact) plus a fresh cross-model GROSS-cases-only semantic pass (thin-float, LLM-figure, page-padding), every above-info finding span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json). The adjudicator CAPS everything at minor (SURFACE_ONLY_SKILLS + SURFACE_PATTERNS) — these contribute at most SOFT_FLAGS, never a HARD verdict — default false_positive_risk:high. NOTE: the pure AI writing-STYLE impressions (AI-flavor prose, defensive 'not-X-but-Y' hedging, narrative-arc, jargon-stuffing, invented codenames) MOVED to the zero-verdict-weight AIS track — for those use skills/ai-style-impressions, NOT this. Emits presentation-signals.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. Triggers: "presentation signals", "surface check", "duplicate tables", "排版信号".
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。
B2B 大客户销售 (B2B 大客户销售 / 企业级复杂销售 (Enterprise B2B Sales / Complex Selling) — 面向企业客户的高价值、长周期、多干系人复杂销售的职业认知操作系统，从业者(AE/客户经理/SE 售前/销售负责人 VP Sales/CRO)、想入行者、以及服务这行(销售咨询/enablement/RevOps)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 三大方法论流派之争: **买方主导的诊断式提问 (consultative/discovery-led: SPIN 提问 → 痛点 → 方案, 「像医生先诊断再开方」) ⇄ 卖方主导的教学式挑战 (Challenger: Teach-Tailor-Take control, 用商业洞见 reframe 客户认知, 「像老师挑战客户的既有想法」) ⇄ 资格审查纪律 (MEDDIC/MEDDPICC: 先严格 qualify/disqualify, 「no deal 好过 bad deal」)**; 三派不是非此即彼, 资深人混用, 但底层世界观分歧真实(问 vs 教 vs 筛); 更深层张力 — 「过程/方法论纪律 (process rigor: 预测准确、deal inspection、qualify) ⇄ 关系/信任 (relationship: champion 培养、高管关系、人情)」, 「卖结果/业务价值 (business outcome/ROI、卖给经济决策人) ⇄ 卖产品/功能 (feature selling)」, 「多线程触达买方委员会 (multithreading buying committee) ⇄ 单一 champion 依赖」; (b) 方法论正典 (最标准化、最易蒸出高质量+CLI 化) — MEDDIC/MEDDPICC (Metrics 量化指标/Economic buyer 经济决策人/Decision Criteria 决策标准/Decision Process 决策流程/Identify Pain 痛点/Champion 内部拥护者 + Paper process 签约流程/Competition 竞争), SPIN (Situation/Problem/Implication/Need-payoff 提问序列), Challenger (商业洞见 commercial insight + reframe + 建设性张力 constructive tension + Mobilizer 调动者), Solution Selling (痛点链 pain chain/愿景创建/buying vision), Sandler (前置合约 up-front contract/痛苦漏斗 pain funnel/潜艇七步), Command of the Message (Force Management: 业务价值框架/before-after/decision criteria), Gap Selling (Keenan: 现状 current state → 期望 future state → 差距 the gap/问题中心), Miller Heiman Strategic Selling (蓝表 blue sheet/buying influences: 经济/用户/技术买家 + coach), Value Selling, BANT (老式资格框架, 多被 MEDDIC 取代); (c) 行业结构与角色 — SDR/BDR (开发/约见) → AE/客户经理 (成交) → SE/售前/Solutions Engineer (技术验证/POC/demo) → CSM (客户成功/续约扩张) → Sales Manager/VP Sales/CRO; RevOps (收入运营), Sales Enablement (赋能); land and expand (先落地再扩张)、量化指标 quota/OTE(目标总收入)/配额达成率/pipeline coverage(管道覆盖率 ~3x 业内经验法则)/win rate(赢率)/sales velocity(销售速度)/ramp time(爬坡期)/ACV·ARR·NRR(年合同额/年经常性收入/净收入留存); (d) 销售周期 (the deal/opportunity lifecycle) — prospecting 开发 → discovery 需求挖掘 → qualification 资格审查(MEDDIC) → demo/technical validation/POC 技术验证 → business case/value 业务价值与 ROI → proposal 提案 → negotiation 谈判(procurement 采购/法务/security review) → close 成交 → onboarding/expansion 交付与扩张; 干系人: champion 拥护者 vs coach 线人 vs economic buyer 经济决策人 vs blocker 阻碍者; mutual action plan/close plan(双向行动计划/成交计划); (e) 产出物与节奏 — discovery call(需求电话)、demo、business case、proposal/SOW、MAP(mutual action plan)、forecast(预测: commit/best case/pipeline 类别)、pipeline review/deal review/QBR(季度业务回顾)/account plan(客户计划); (f) 职业/招聘/薪酬 — quota/OTE/comp plan(底薪+提成)/accelerator(加速器)/SPIFF/clawback、ramp、President's Club(顶尖销售俱乐部)、SDR→AE→管理 晋升路径、rep turnover(销售流失率高); (g) 争议/批判 — Challenger 是否过誉(CEB 原始数据被质疑、insight selling 批评)、MEDDIC 沦为填表剧场(box-checking theater, 填字段不真 qualify)、活动指标 vs 质量(spray-and-pray 群发/冷电话存废之争)、AI SDR/自动化淹没收件箱(2024-2025 AI BDR 泡沫 + 邮件送达率崩溃 backlash)、SDR 军团模式是否将死(Winning by Design/signal-based GTM 取代)、配额虚高与销售 burnout、季末打折促单、销售方法论的「宗教化」与培训-认证产业链、最大竞争对手其实是「no decision/维持现状」而非对手; (h) 流派/思想谱系 — 提问诊断派(Rackham SPIN/Bosworth&Eades Solution Selling/Keenan Gap Selling) vs 挑战教学派(Dixon&Adamson Challenger/Force Management Command of the Message) vs 资格纪律派(MEDDIC: Napoli&Dunkel 起源/John McMahon/MEDDICC Andy Whyte) vs 关系战略派(Miller Heiman Strategic/Large Account) vs SaaS 现代收入架构派(Aaron Ross Predictable Revenue/Mark Roberge Sales Acceleration Formula/Jacco van der Kooij Winning by Design bowtie/David Skok 指标) vs 开发-心态派(Jeb Blount Fanatical Prospecting/Sales EQ、Anthony Iannarino、Josh Braun) vs 谈判(Chris Voss Never Split the Difference 战术同理心)。不含: B2C/零售/电商导购销售、纯电话客服/客户支持、纯渠道/分销管理(channel 虽相关但聚焦直销复杂销售)、纯 marketing/需求生成(demand gen 虽上游但本 skill 聚焦销售执行)、纯 CSM 客户成功(虽相关但聚焦 new logo + expansion 的销售动作)。) Master OS — automated mastery of B2B 大客户销售 / 企业级复杂销售 (Enterprise B2B Sales / Complex Selling) — 面向企业客户的高价值、长周期、多干系人复杂销售的职业认知操作系统，从业者(AE/客户经理/SE 售前/销售负责人 VP Sales/CRO)、想入行者、以及服务这行(销售咨询/enablement/RevOps)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 三大方法论流派之争: **买方主导的诊断式提问 (consultative/discovery-led: SPIN 提问 → 痛点 → 方案, 「像医生先诊断再开方」) ⇄ 卖方主导的教学式挑战 (Challenger: Teach-Tailor-Take control, 用商业洞见 reframe 客户认知, 「像老师挑战客户的既有想法」) ⇄
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。
Check that a document's claims about code are actually true by reading the prose, the code, and the tests and reporting (or fixing) where they disagree. Use whenever the user wants to verify a README, guide, spec, or docstring still matches the code; whenever they mention documentation drift, doc-code sync, "is this still accurate", stale docs, or keeping docs/tests/code consistent; before publishing or merging a docs change; or as a periodic doc-accuracy sweep. The agent reads the prose's meaning directly — there is no claim-comment DSL to maintain. Pairs with TDD — the test suite is the deterministic behavioral gate, this skill is the semantic prose-vs-reality 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。
Load at the start of any task whose deliverable is prose another person will read — a PR description, commit message, README, doc, postmortem, blog post, issue or review comment, report, release note or essay — before drafting it, whether the result is pushed, posted, published or saved to a file, without being asked. Draft, then run this pass on the draft before handing it over. Also use when someone says "de-claude", "de-slop", "humanize this", "this reads like AI", "make it sound human", or asks for a voice, tone or register edit. Rewrites the constructions that mark prose as model-written (staged reveals, verdict headers, aphoristic closers, "it's not X, it's Y", em-dash drama, forced triads, flat-certainty adverbs) into plain technical prose and checks the rewrite kept every claim. Not for fiction, poetry, code, or quoted text; for a full adversarial review of a deliverable use challenging.
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。
Write B2B cold emails and follow-up sequences that get replies. Use when the user wants to write cold outreach emails, prospecting emails, cold email campaigns, sales development emails, or SDR emails. Also use when the user mentions "cold outreach," "prospecting email," "outbound email," "email to leads," "reach out to prospects," "sales email," "follow-up email sequence," "nobody's replying to my emails," or "how do I write a cold email." Covers subject lines, opening lines, body copy, CTAs, personalization, and multi-touch follow-up sequences. For warm/lifecycle email sequences, see emails. For sales collateral beyond emails, see sales-enablement.
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。
Edit drafts into natural prose, inspect AI-sounding patterns, or review how a specified audience might respond passage by passage. Zero Slop runs inside the user's existing AI assistant with local tools that protect source details. Use for humanizing or de-slopping writing, polishing outward-facing prose, social drafts, final editorial checks, or an explicit simulated reader review. Preserve facts, voice and format; reader simulations are hypotheses, not human feedback.
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。
Suede-owned prospecting and qualification discipline. Use when defining an ICP, sourcing and enriching a bounded lead list, finding early adopters or design partners, scoring account fit, or documenting disqualification evidence. NOT FOR: sending outreach (use suede-cold-email), changing CRM routing (use suede-revops), or profiling competitors instead of prospects (use suede-competitor-profiling).
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。
Suede-owned B2B cold-email discipline for evidence-based personalization, subject lines, opening lines, concise bodies, one clear CTA, and bounded follow-up sequences. Use when writing or repairing outbound email to qualified prospects. NOT FOR: building or qualifying the prospect list (use suede-prospecting), lifecycle or nurture email (use suede-emails), or broader sales collateral (use suede-sales-enablement).
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。
Reusable writing-style contract for agent outputs (reports, ARCH docs, verdicts, threat models). Forces direct prose with concrete evidence, no marketing voice, no hedge words. The single most-referenced skill across the pipeline — used by 28 agents.
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 a finished epic folder in the ticket tree against the evidence it left behind — the epic file, each ticket plan, diffs, commits — and produce a retrospective with sourced findings, action items, and an acceptance decision. Use when the user says "run a retrospective" or "lets retro the epic [epic]". Supports -H/--headless
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。
Map curriculum connections across multiple subjects for a real-world problem or authentic context. Use when planning cross-curricular projects or connecting content to real issues.
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。
Check an educational practice or task for cultural bias, WEIRD assumptions, and cross-cultural validity. Use when adapting resources for diverse contexts or questioning universal 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。