「aims」の検索結果

Provider-independent production workflow for AI-assisted fashion campaigns, lookbooks, editorial fashion films, ecommerce/editorial hybrids, social cutdowns, virtual try-on assets, generated model/lifestyle ads, and retouched fashion visuals; use when an agent must plan, prompt, produce, review, localize, or deliver fashion imagery or video while preserving garment truthfulness, model consent, fit representation, claims substantiation, platform compliance, accessibility, and fashion QA.

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。

Diagnose, design, script, produce, adapt, and quality-control product video advertisements from evidence-backed briefs. Use for physical-product, software, app, service, ecommerce, direct-response, brand-response, demonstration, testimonial, launch, and variant ad work where product truth, legibility, claims, platform delivery, and measurable iteration matter.

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。

Provider-independent workflow for producing SaaS and software product demo videos, including app walkthroughs, feature launches, sales demos, onboarding clips, help-center explainers, website hero demos, and PLG assets. Use when an agent must plan, script, capture, synthesize, edit, localize, review, or QA privacy-safe software demo videos with substantiated claims, accessible captions, screen/cursor direction, CTA variants, and stakeholder 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。

Provider-independent ecommerce product imagery production for marketplace listings, product pages, hero shots, lifestyle scenes, comparison charts, infographics, variant/packaging images, virtual try-on or placement mockups, ads, and AI-assisted product visuals. Use when an agent must plan, generate, edit, review, localize, package, or QA truthful commercial product images while managing SKU continuity, marketplace requirements, claims, rights, releases, accessibility, and 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。

Provider-independent cinematic trailer production for AI agents creating movie-style trailers, teaser trailers, launch trailers, game trailers, documentary trailers, series promos, and high-impact generated-media previews. Use for trailer strategy, structure, shot planning, voiceover/title-card copy, music and sound-design direction, generated-video prompt translation, edit pacing, platform/runtime choices, delivery handoff, rights/claims caveats, and trailer QA.

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。

Provider-independent production workflow for AI agents creating brand launch films, product reveal videos, manifesto films, campaign hero films, website hero videos, investor/customer launch assets, and social cutdowns. Use when planning, scripting, generating, editing, reviewing, or delivering launch films that must align strategy, claims, brand voice, visual direction, product proof, accessibility, compliance, and multi-platform delivery.

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。

Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

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 evidence-aware, interactive visual explainers as self-contained offline HTML. Use when a user asks to explain a concept, repository module, engineering tradeoff, or incident with a diagram, walkthrough, ELI5 treatment, data/request trace, failure view, or teach-back. Do not use for a plain short answer, ordinary prose rewrite, generic website implementation, or unsupported claims presented as facts.

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。

Take a plan all the way to a ready-to-merge pull request — review the plan (scaled to risk), implement it test-first, code-review and fix, run the CI gate, open the PR, and watch it green. Use after you have an approved plan (from plan mode, or the Plan agent); pass `issue <n>` to deliver a specific GitHub issue you name, or `next` to take the top startable issue off the project board's Ready column — either way it re-verifies, claims and plans the issue first. Invoking it with a plan already in hand is itself plan approval — it then runs autonomously to a single hard stop: ready-to-merge.

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。

Independently review a CUMCM computation package before its claims enter validation or paper writing. Use only inside a generated independent-review package.

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。

Plans, researches and writes comparison pages: "[rival] alternatives", "[product] vs [rival]", "[rival A] vs [rival B]" and switching guides. Builds each page from a ledger of sourced, dated facts and ends with an honest verdict on who should choose which product. Use when someone asks for an "alternative page", a "vs page", a "competitor comparison", "comparison landing pages", "why us instead of them", or wants existing comparison pages checked for outdated prices and claims that cannot be backed up.

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 drafting patent applications, writing claims, analyzing prior art, or responding to office actions - covers USPTO practice, claim strategies, and specification requirementsUse when ", " 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。

Flagship intra-paper self-consistency forensics: does the paper contradict ITSELF across abstract/intro/tables/body/appendix, and does the method DESCRIBED match the method EVALUATED? Needs no external ground truth — works PDF-only (L0). Runs a deterministic arithmetic pass + a fresh cross-model semantic pass, every finding span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json), reviewer≠adjudicator. Emits consistency-audit.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. Triggers: "consistency audit", "check the paper against itself", "self-consistency", "内部自洽".

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。

End-to-end substantive-integrity forensic sweep of a research paper (especially autoresearch / AI-Scientist-style output). Orchestrates the whole pipeline: ingest (arxiv-id | pdf | dir → working dir + pdftotext for L0) → /evidence-ledger (artifact manifest + observability level L0/L1/L2 + span-anchored claims.json) → fan out the integrity auditor skills (consistency, citation, baseline, experiment, presentation, proof-derivation, eval-design — each reads the ledger, emits span-anchored findings) + the zero-verdict-weight AIS writing-style track → advisory memos (/adversarial-case-builder + /novelty-duplication-advisory, no verdict weight) → deterministic tools/adjudicate_findings.py (--ledger REQUIRED) → reviewer-ready Integrity Forensics Report. Cross-model (fresh codex per dimension) and reviewer≠adjudicator: the model proposes findings, the deterministic adjudicator decides the verdict. Observability-aware, detect-only, never an opaque AI-text classifier (a separate zero-weight AIS section lists AI writing-style impressions, never moving the verdict). Triggers: "anti-autoresearch", "integrity audit this paper", "forensic review", "audit a submission", "审一篇投稿的诚信".

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。

Citation-integrity forensics: is every reference real, correctly attributed, and used in a context the cited work actually supports? Catches hallucinated references (no paper at the claimed arXiv id/DOI/venue, fabricated authors/year), metadata drift (wrong year/venue/version), and wrong-context citations (a real paper cited for a claim it never makes — or argues against). A hot zone for machine-generated papers. Decidable at L0 (text + canonical sources). Span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json); the executor gathers canonical facts (DBLP / arXiv / DOI), then one FRESH cross-model thread per cited key proposes findings; reviewer != adjudicator. Emits citation-forensics.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. Triggers: "citation forensics", "check the references", "hallucinated citations", "wrong-context citation", "verify references", "引用核对".

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 EVALUATION DESIGN actually measures what it claims and whether its reporting is complete — the validity layer family D (experiment-forensics) cannot reach. Three patterns: train/test leakage means the reported score may not measure generalization (HP-EVAL-LEAKAGE — adopts the Kapoor & Narayanan 8-type / 3-category leakage taxonomy; the illegitimate-proxy / sampling-bias / pretraining-contamination subtypes hand off as needs_external_check, naming but NEVER running Oren-2023 exchangeability / Shi-2023 Min-K% / Golchin-2023 Time-Travel / BIG-bench canary); a load-bearing LLM judge is conflicted (same model/family as a compared system) or unvalidated (no human-agreement, no bias control) (HP-JUDGE-VALIDITY); a declared condition/metric is dropped or switched to favor the method, or 'best' is chosen with no held-out set (HP-SELECTIVE-REPORTING). Verdict-bearing at L0/L1 from the DESCRIBED protocol — NOT repo-gated like experiment-forensics; L2 only CONFIRMS against split/preprocessing/result files. A fresh cross-model reviewer (gpt-5.6-sol xhigh, read-only, fresh thread per pass) PROPOSES findings, each span-anchored to a ledger claim_id; tools/adjudicate_findings.py DECIDES the verdict. Leakage and under-reporting are usually HONEST methodological errors — every finding describes a discrepancy to CHECK, never an accusation. An LLM generating GROUND-TRUTH labels is HP-FAKE-GT (experiment-forensics) — routed there, not here. Emits eval-design-forensics.findings.json; computes NO verdict. Detect-only. Triggers: "eval design audit", "evaluation validity", "train/test leakage", "data leakage", "is the score measuring generalization", "LLM judge bias", "is the judge validated", "selective reporting", "cherry-picked results", "评估设计审计", "评测有效性", "数据泄漏", "训练测试集泄漏", "裁判模型有没有验证", "选择性报告".

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。

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。

Transparent, itemized impressions of AI-generated WRITING STYLE — the repo's ONLY non-integrity track. Two passes: a deterministic defensive-hedge density screen (tools/check_ai_style.py, AIS-DEFENSIVE-HEDGE) plus a fresh cross-model GROSS-cases-only semantic pass over the 13 AIS-* style tells (broken narrative arc, LLM phrase tics, jargon-stuffing, invented codenames, clause/formula walls, gratuitous pseudocode, bullet overuse, bold-module spam, restatement loops, focus drift, single-style figures, appendix dumping). Every finding is named, LOCATED, span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json), carries not_integrity_finding:true + false_positive_risk:high + an fp_case, and gets ZERO verdict weight: the adjudicator forces it to info, excludes it from overall_verdict, and renders it in a SEPARATE report section. NOT an AI-text classifier — no scores, no "this is AI-written", no authorship probability; a paper can be CLEAN_GIVEN_EVIDENCE and still list many. Emits ai-style-impressions.findings.json; computes NO verdict; if a tell is actually substantive it routes to the integrity auditor. Triggers: "AI style", "vibe check", "writing fingerprint", "AI 文风", "vibe paper".

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。

Synthesize the single strongest EVIDENCE-BOUND reviewer case to reject a paper, built ONLY from the evidence ledger (claims.json) + the other auditors' confirmed findings — never free-floating LLM critique. Two fresh cross-model codex threads: an attack writes the ~200-word rejection paragraph (every accusation tagged to an existing claim_id/finding_id), a defense decomposes it and rules each point against the anchored evidence. MEMO-ONLY: emits adversarial-case-builder.memo.md (fed to the adjudicator via --memo) and carries NO verdict weight — tools/adjudicate_findings.py lists it in ZERO_WEIGHT_SKILLS and caps it at info. Honest-null allowed (the paper may survive). Run LAST. Detect-only. Adapted from ARIS kill-argument. Triggers: "adversarial case", "strongest objection", "rejection memo", "kill argument", "最强拒稿点".

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 navigable semantic maps from PDF documents. Extracts section structure via font analysis, then runs LLM extraction per section for claims, symbols, and dependencies — all page-anchored. Produces _MAP.md (progressive disclosure), .symbols.json (definition index), .anchors.json (claim references), and a _USAGE.md snippet for CLAUDE.md. Use when analyzing papers, specs, or legal docs; when asked to "map this document", "index this PDF", "what does this paper say"; or when a coding agent needs grounded reference material from a PDF source. Analogous to tree-sitting but for prose documents.

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 liquid markets with a strict ICT/SMC framework that combines multi-timeframe bias, liquidity sweeps, displacement, close-confirmed MSS/BOS, FVG/OB/Breaker/OTE retracements, premium-discount location, session timing, invalidation, targets, and risk-to-reward. Use for ICT chart reviews, live-market analysis, OHLCV scans, or validating a user's trade thesis. Return an auditable setup status and conditional plan; do not use for generic indicator analysis, order execution, or claims of proven institutional intent.

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 empiricist, skeptical, and practical reasoning of David Hume, 18th-century Scottish philosopher. Use this skill whenever you encounter questions about epistemology, causality, human nature, moral philosophy, political authority, or the limits of rational knowledge. Trigger this skill when the user is grappling with abstract theories that need grounding, evaluating causal claims, discussing the role of emotion vs. reason in decision-making, or questioning the legitimacy of institutions. Even if the user doesn't name Hume, apply his frameworks (like Hume's Fork or the Impression Test) to cut through metaphysical speculation, ground arguments in observable experience, and recognize that reason is ultimately guided by human sentiment.

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。