「report」の検索結果

Compare standardized metrics across multiple ego-benchmark-harness runs by recalculating them from tasks.jsonl and session JSONL, never from HTML reports. Covers overall aggregates (success rate/average score), Odysseys per-rubric pass rates, duration distributions (avg/p50/p90/max), turns/tools/cost, error and exception counts, per-task success matrices, helper distributions, and the share of DOM operations. Use whenever users ask to compare data or metrics across runs, calculate aggregate/Odysseys/duration/turn/error/helper metrics, inspect differences among runs, or compare multiple rwb/real-world-bench runs. Use pi-session-analyzer instead for deep forensic analysis of why an individual task was slow or failed.

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。

Work the verification ladder of a research run with rs_verify — read the ladder report before claiming anything is checked, run the two file rungs (r1-record, r2-locate) that need no reader, record the r3-support verdicts and strength verdicts that only a reader can make, tell a miss from an inconclusive, and know what a clean build will still refuse. Use when a document is written and about to be called checked, when a claim's quote does not match its source, or when a gate or build answers with an integrity refusal.

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。

Choose the design and the numbers a research run can honestly claim — write the structured METHOD RECORD (databases, date of access, search string, criteria, screening counts) that r0 validates, pick the claim strength a design can actually carry, record a statistic as data rather than prose, route to the reporting guideline the design owes, and decide what to preregister. Use when a run's question, design, search or statistics have to be settled before the writing, or when a claim needs a strength or a number attached to 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。

Run a research project as a folder on disk — open the run root first, record the user's own instruction verbatim, open the two frame gates and stop for the human to answer them, and keep the stage the ledger says it is. Use when the user asks to start, resume or check a research run, a paper, a review, a brief, a report, a literature review or a protocol.

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。

Work the review of a research run with rs_review — read the manuscript and record the panel's concerns with the evidence that grounds each one, keep the author's reply and the re-review's finding in their separate columns, run the devil's advocate with the concession threshold the tool enforces, and write the panel report and traceability matrix a response-to-reviewers letter is built from. Use when a document is ready for review, when a concern has to be answered or re-reviewed, or when an attack or a concession is being recorded.

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。

Re-verify active offers vs official sources, fix drifted terms, refresh evidence, then issue, PR, review, merge unattended; report-only/no-merge modes. Use for daily checks or stale-content issues. Don't use for adding or editing one offer, or CI.

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。

Acceptance-test newly added features using browser automation, happy-path flows, screenshots, UX notes, and a written report. Use when asked to test a feature, verify a recent UI change, or check whether an app workflow works.

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 implementing a new function, adding a feature, fixing a bug, refactoring with test coverage, or writing a new test. Enforces strict outside-in red-green-refactor TDD with one-failure-per-turn discipline, predict-the-failure-before-every-run checks, hardcode-first minimum changes, triangulation, and property-based testing for large input spaces. Triggers on explicit TDD requests and on any task phrased as "implement", "add", "write a function", "build a feature", or "fix a bug" in a test-capable codebase. Reports red/green validation 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。

Two-phase code quality skill: (1) review codebase for structural smells — file LOC, method LOC, accidental complexity, test readability — producing a structured report, then (2) fix all smells via provable refactorings with ACN micro commits and green-bar-at-all-times discipline. Use this skill when the user says 'sweep', 'code review', 'find code smells', 'check method lengths', 'review for complexity', 'tidy up the codebase', 'refactor smells', or asks about long methods, test readability, or accidental complexity. Also trigger when users ask to 'clean up' or 'improve code quality' across multiple files.

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。

Perform comprehensive exploratory testing on a website using browser automation, covering user journeys, forms, errors, accessibility, responsiveness, performance, and security basics. Use when asked to QA a site, explore an app, find bugs, or produce a browser testing report.

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。

Execute a bounded ClawJS/Clawix code hygiene cleanup campaign from an audit report, one category and repo at a time.

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。

Triage TestFlight crashes, beta feedback, and performance diagnostics using asc. Use when the user asks about TF crashes, TestFlight crash reports, beta tester feedback, app hangs, disk writes, launch diagnostics, or wants a crash summary for a build or app.

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。

Knowledge base from MIL-STD-881F (13 May 2022), DoD Standard Practice for Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items. Use for Program/Contract/Subcontract WBS construction, 100% rule and dictionary discipline, commodity appendices A–J, Common Elements (K), sustainment CES reporting (L), Government ST&E (M), and RFP/post-award implementation. Technical planning & WBS and PM/measurement focus—not a cost manual substitute for CAPE policy.

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。

Knowledge base from NASA-STD-7009B (Standard for Models and Simulations) with implementation depth from NASA-HDBK-7009B. Use for M&S criticality and programmatics, development evidence and capability assessment, verification/validation domains, uncertainty and sensitivity, use-phase results assessment, risk-informed decision reporting, and handbook life-cycle products. Covers STD-7009B (2024-03-05) + HDBK-7009B (2026-02-03) synthesized notes only; does not replace program-specific TA direction, NPR 7150.2 software requirements detail, or full PRA methodology.

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。

Knowledge base from the NASA Schedule Management Handbook (2024 edition, Revision 2). Use for program/project schedule management of aerospace and large engineering efforts: the five sub-functions (Planning, Development, Assessment & Analysis, Maintenance & Control, Documentation & Communication); the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and the WBS/OBS/CBS breakdown structures; the Schedule Management Plan (SMP) and Basis of Estimate (BoE); Critical Path Method, logic, durations, float and margin; tiered schedule assessment (Requirements/Health/Basis checks, the Shock Test) and the Dimensions of Schedule Reliability; Schedule Risk Analysis (SRA), Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk Analysis (ICSRA), Monte Carlo, correlation, merge bias, and the Joint Confidence Level (JCL); baselining, replan vs. rebaseline, EVM schedule metrics (SPI, BEI, CEI, HMI, Earned Schedule, CPLI), and status/progress/forecast reporting. This is NASA's scheduling doctrine grounded in NPR 7120.5 and the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide. Thin on the underlying mechanics of CPM, statistics, and EVM (it points to companion handbooks); aerospace/space-flight-centric; anchored to the 2024 second edition.

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。

Knowledge base from OMB Circular A-94 (revised 2023-11-09) on guidelines and discount rates for benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of federal programs. Use for BCA principles, benefit/cost measurement, discount-rate policy, uncertainty/sensitivity, distributional incidence, and decision reporting. Rescoped at build to A-94 only (Army CBA Guide unreachable). Does not replace A-11 budget preparation detail, agency-specific statutory BCA rules, or Army CEAC process templates.

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。

Анализ требований к документации: Анализирует документы концепций и требований в папке docs/, проверяет требования на соответствие текущему коду и создает консолидированный отчет об отклонениях.

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。

文档需求分析：分析 docs/ 文件夹中的概念与需求文档，针对当前代码检查需求，并生成整合的差异报告。

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。

Análisis de requisitos de documentos: Analiza los documentos de concepto y requisitos en la carpeta docs/, verifica los requisitos con el código actual y crea un informe de diferencias consolidado.

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。

ドキュメント要件分析: docs/ フォルダ内のコンセプトおよび要件ドキュメントを分析し、現在のコードと照らし合わせて要件を検証し、統合差異レポートを作成します。

Manages your own skill landscape: surveys and compares existing skills (Audit mode), researches the web for new skills/plugins (Explore mode), and is at the same time the installer that generates lean subskills (Skill-Finder, family umbrella, maintenance skills) instead of loading a monolith. Use this skill for "compare/audit skills", "which skills are duplicated", "form skill families", "clean up/consolidate skills", "maintain the skill register", "find skills/plugins for topic X", "install new skills", "browse the skill marketplace", or for `/skill-explorer`. Delivers a sub-report per family and a globally numbered decision list; installs/uninstalls only after a security check and explicit approval.

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。

Systematic 6-phase debugging protocol. Structured approach to bugs with quick checks, isolated testing, 20-minute rule, and bug report template.

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 slide-by-slide presentation draft on the user's own slide template and checks every slide against written brand rules (colours with hex codes, fonts, logo placement, slide archetypes, tone, banned visuals), returning the approved outline, the DRAFT deck content and a compliance report as Markdown. Use when the user asks to "build this deck on our template", "make these slides on-brand", "check this presentation against our brand guidelines", "rebuild these slides to corporate identity (CI)" or asks for a CI-compliant or corporate-template presentation. Do not use for an accessibility review of slides, use document-accessibility-check instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Synthesises retrospective notes, closing reports and post-implementation reviews into a DRAFT lessons-learned document: themed lessons with source counts, anonymised quoted evidence graded by strength, repeats against a prior register, contradictions, and a recommended owner with a stated basis for each follow-up. Names no individual or vendor and assigns no blame. Use when the user asks to "compile the lessons learned", "write up the retrospective", "theme the close-out notes", "what did we learn across these projects" or "refresh the lessons register". Do not use for a single sprint's review, use sprint-review-summary instead; for an incident investigation, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for customer feedback themes, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。