「argument」の検索結果

Use when positioning an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript in the literature. AERJ readers span the whole field, so the paper must engage the literatures a general education-research audience expects and speak past its own subfield. Builds the positioning argument; it does not write the literature review for you.

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 the identification argument is the bottleneck for an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript — causal identification in an empirical design, parameter identification in a structural model, or treatment-effect identification in an experiment. Stress-tests the strategy so it is clean enough to defend in a few pages, before exhibits are finalized.

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 a model — a full theory paper's argument or the structural/conceptual scaffolding behind an empirical AER: Insights short-format manuscript — needs to be made minimal, so it carries the single insight in a few pages. Keeps only what the insight requires; it does not develop a general framework.

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 the causal identification argument is the bottleneck for an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) manuscript — RCT, difference-in-differences/event study, regression discontinuity, IV, or shift-share. Stress-tests the data-to-causal-estimate mapping to the AEJ: Applied credibility bar before exhibits are finalized; it does not write the prose or build the 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。

Use when building the theoretical engine for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — mechanisms, process vs. variance logic, constructs, and boundary conditions. Builds the argument; it does not select methods or run analysis.

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 situating an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript within organization-theory conversations and sharpening the gap/tension it addresses. Positions the argument; it does not develop the core theory or write the methods.

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 revising an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper for house style — putting the cross-modal contribution on the first page, framing media (figures, video, audio) as evidence rather than decoration, making the fusion the visible claim, and compressing the argument into a 6-8 page ACM sigconf body with references-only overflow.

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 situating an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript in the literature — entering one of the journal's own long-running conversations, engaging the interdisciplinary sources (organization theory, sociology, psychology) those conversations draw on, and marking precisely what the paper adds. Positions the argument; it does not build the theory itself (aos-theory-development).

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 polishing the prose and structure of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript to AOM house style and an argument-driven voice. Late-stage polish; it does NOT build theory or check logic — do those first with amr-theory-development and amr-data-analysis.

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 you must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it "challenges and extends" that conversation. Positions the argument within a literature; it does NOT summarize the field (AMR punishes review-essays) and does NOT build the new theory (that is amr-theory-development).

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 building the actual theory for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — turning a positioned puzzle into defined constructs, explicit relationships, propositions, and boundary conditions. Constructs the theory; it does NOT stress-test the argument's logic (that is amr-data-analysis) or design any data collection (AMR has none).

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 polishing the prose of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — sustained argumentative writing that carries theory and evidence together, a self-contained abstract, disciplined length despite the absence of a hard cap, and full anonymization for double-anonymized review. Polishes prose; it does not run the submission preflight (aos-submission).

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 the theoretical argument and hypotheses are the bottleneck for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — building a mechanism and deriving testable hypotheses a priori. Constructs the theory; it does not run the analysis (amj-data-analysis) or write the final contribution paragraph (amj-contribution-framing).

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 revising an AAMAS paper so the interaction contribution leads the first page, the solution concept or incentive property is named, the game and agents are legible, claims are paired with proofs or multiagent experiments, the argument fits eight two-column pages plus references, and the wording stays double-blind.

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 full-manuscript prose polish of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — front-loading the argument, active voice, structure, and AOM house style. Polishes language and structure; it does not create the theoretical contribution (amj-contribution-framing) or fix the analysis (amj-data-analysis).

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。

Looks up current LiveKit facts (API signatures, CLI flags, config options, model and provider support, SDK changelogs, pricing) from the docs instead of answering from memory. Use whenever a question touches LiveKit specifics: "does LiveKit support X", "what changed in agents 1.8", "what are the arguments to Y", "how much does LiveKit cost", "find an example of Z in the LiveKit repos", or before writing any LiveKit code. Other LiveKit skills load this one first. Covers the LiveKit Docs MCP server and the `lk docs` CLI.

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。

Locate AST read/write usage markers and builtin CallOp usage rules in LuisaCompute. Use when investigating or modifying AST variable usage propagation, FunctionBuilder internals, or CallOp argument marking.

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 CLI tools with argument parsing, interactive prompts, progress bars, spinners, and shell completion scripts using commander, click, typer, or cobra.

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。

No Inference / Source-Locked Verification. Forces Claude to answer ONLY from user-provided materials and/or online sources actually accessed — no inference, no assumptions, no gap-filling. Every factual, legal, numerical, or procedural claim must be anchored to a cited source. Use whenever Claude reviews documents, summarises evidence, checks accuracy, drafts submissions, creates timelines, extracts facts, checks citations, analyses rules, prepares legal arguments, compares documents, verifies claims, produces chronologies, works from uploaded materials, performs legal research, checks case status, or does anything where evidential fidelity matters. Also trigger on: 'source-locked', 'no inference', 'only from the materials', 'don't assume', 'stick to the evidence', 'verify this', 'check this is right', 'work from the documents'. Overrides Claude's default tendency to fill gaps. If evidential accuracy matters, use this skill.

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。

Produces an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the opposing-counsel discipline twice: an unrestrained first pass, then the same instrument turned on that pass to cut every point that collapses under challenge - attacks on conceded facts, wrong-forum objections, speculation about documents and motives, gotchas with innocent explanations, overclaims, self-refuting assertions, and padding. The deliverable is one standalone attack containing only what can be defended, capped at five heads, not a discussion of the discarded draft. Use to attack, stress-test, red-team or rebut a submission, brief, motion, witness statement, letter or structured legal reasoning. Triggers on "attack this but only with points that hold", "no cheap shots", "what survives reply", "which points can I actually defend", "give me the version I can file", "double-pass adversarial review". Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong or scattershot. Formal British English.

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。

Modélise le raisonnement juridique d'un magistrat français pour l'analyse de dossiers civils. Utiliser ce skill pour analyser un litige et identifier les questions juridiques, construire un raisonnement juridique structuré (syllogisme), rédiger une motivation de jugement civil, rechercher la jurisprudence et les textes applicables via Judilibre et Légifrance, qualifier juridiquement des faits et actes, distinguer prétentions, moyens et arguments. Basé sur les Fiches méthodologiques de rédaction du jugement civil (ENM/Cour de cassation, 2023).

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 mathematically, empirically, or technically dense papers for readers outside the author’s specialty, including empirical legal scholarship, law-and-economics models, and legal-technology research. Clarifies terminology, antecedents, study design, and claim–statistic relationships while checking equations, numbers, quotations, and citations against the source. Use to clarify exposition or de-jargonize a technical draft; not to rewrite briefs or doctrinal arguments. Produces an edited draft and audit memo. Full integrity checks and original-format rendering require suitable extraction, code execution, and document tools; otherwise provides proposed edits with verification limits disclosed.

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。

Rigorous multi-pass editor for law review articles, student notes, seminar papers and other legal scholarship. Runs six specialized passes — structure, substantive critique, Bluebook citations, grammar and clarity, fact-checking against sources, and a synthesizing memo — and delivers an editorial memo with issues prioritized as critical, substantial or minor and keyed to specific footnotes and paragraphs. Handles articles of any length, including 50,000-word pieces, by chunking on section boundaries. Reads .docx directly. Use when editing, critiquing, workshopping or pre-submission-reviewing academic legal writing. Triggers on "edit my article," "review this draft," "critique my note," "check my Bluebook citations," "is my argument sound," "read my law review piece," "workshop this paper," "pre-submission review." Chunking needs Python 3; fact-checking needs web search; both degrade gracefully without.

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。

Assistant académique pour enseignants-chercheurs en droit. Six tâches : (1) recherche juridique approfondie avec accent doctrinal, (2) relecture de documents avec vérification des références, commentaires Word, détection d'indices de plagiat/IA et cohérence argumentative, (3) création de sujets et corrigés d'exercices juridiques universitaires, (4) mise à jour de cours, ouvrages et documents juridiques, (5) création de cours avec support docx et PPTX, (6) préparation de fiches de TD. MCP : OpenLegi, Themia, LegalDataHunter. Déclencher pour toute demande liée à l'enseignement ou la recherche en droit : cours, TD, fiches de TD, examens, sujets, corrigés, relecture, mise à jour, recherche doctrinale. NE PAS déclencher pour les QCM (utiliser qcm-generator).

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。