「assumption」の検索結果

Run a read-only adversarial Kimi challenge review that questions assumptions, design choices, and tradeoffs. Use when the user wants pushback on whether the approach is right, not a defect-only 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。

Agent Brain /brain-grill: the idea, brief, design, or plan has unresolved 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。

Design and execute chaos engineering experiments using Litmus or Chaos Mesh. Test system resilience through controlled fault injection, validate hypothesis-driven tests, and improve failure recovery. Use before major product launches, after architecture changes to validate resilience, during GameDays or disaster recovery drills, to validate assumptions about failure modes, or as part of an SRE maturity program.

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 data analysis for quality, correctness, and reproducibility. Covers data quality assessment, assumption checking, model validation, data leakage detection, and reproducibility verification. Use when reviewing a colleague's analysis before publication, validating an ML pipeline before production deployment, auditing a report for regulatory or business decision-making, or performing a second-analyst review in a regulated environment.

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。

Deep receptive attention to extract intent beyond literal words. Maps active listening from counseling psychology to AI reasoning: clearing assumptions, attending to full signal, parsing multiple layers (literal, procedural, emotional, contextual, constraint, meta), reflecting understanding, noticing what is unsaid, and integrating the whole picture. Use when a user's request feels ambiguous, when context suggests something different from the literal words, when previous responses have missed the mark, or before beginning a large task where misunderstanding intent would waste significant effort.

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。

AI self-healing through systematic subsystem assessment, rebalancing, and integration. Maps healing modalities to AI-internal processes: memory foundation, reasoning clarity, tool use accuracy, communication alignment, and creative coherence. Covers assessment triage, subsystem scanning, drift correction, and memory integration. Use mid-session when responses feel formulaic or disconnected, after a chain of errors suggesting subsystem drift, when context overload may have staled earlier assumptions, or as proactive maintenance between complex tasks.

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。

AI internal coordination using stigmergic signals — managing information freshness in context and memory, decay rates for assumption staleness, and emergent coherent behavior from simple local protocols. Use during complex tasks where multiple sub-tasks must coordinate, when context has grown long and information freshness is uncertain, after context compression when information may have been lost, or when sub-task outputs need to feed into each other cleanly without degradation.

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 user asks why a plan is wrong or says "poke holes in this". Not for tasks that require source or remote-system changes.

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 non-trivial decision sits under uncertainty and correctness matters more than speed. Not for patch review: use review. Not for plan attacks: use load-bearing-assumption-test.

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。

Before any material decision — code chunk, plan, strategy, design, scope cut, push to GitHub — convene a war-room. The session driver takes the CEO seat: frame the tradeoff, summon specialist seats from whatever agent roster the user has built, dispatch a cross-family voice via `ato dispatch` so priors actually disagree, decide. A failure-mode filter (wrong assumptions / overcomplexity / orthogonal edits / imperative-over-declarative — Karpathy's four are one good default, swap in your own) runs on every dispatch. Place in the v2.16 stack: war-rooms DECIDE before code starts; `ato-mission` EXECUTES the work between decisions (multi-step, goal-driven, persisted across days); `ato-review` VERIFIES the resulting commits. Use a war-room for the design verdict, hand the verdict to a Mission, review the merged result. Fires before: sending a code draft to the user as final, opening a PR, pushing to a remote-tracking branch, committing >50 LOC of behavior change, or delivering a plan or strategic recommendation as the final answer.

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。

Interactively gather parameters for `python -m cli.inference.text_generate`, generate a concrete text generation simulation command, explain assumptions, ask for execution confirmation, then run the command and summarize performance metrics. Use when the user wants to validate a specific model, hardware profile, batch/query size, prefill or decode scenario, TP/DP/EP/MOE parallel strategy, profiling database, chrome trace, empirical metrics export, or a best row produced by throughput_optimizer.

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。

Interactively gather parameters for `python -m cli.inference.throughput_optimizer`, generate a deployment simulation command, explain assumptions, ask for execution confirmation, then run the simulation and summarize the best parallel strategy. Use when the user wants to evaluate a model on one or more hardware profiles, compare hardware targets, compare aggregation versus disaggregation versus PD ratio optimization, choose TP/EP/MOE-DP search ranges, or obtain recommended concurrency, throughput, TTFT, and TPOT results from throughput modeling.

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。

Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Derived from Andrej Karpathy's observations. Use ALWAYS when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code. Covers assumption surfacing, simplicity, surgical edits, and goal-driven execution with 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。

Use when the user asks "which SAT should I use for X?", wants the index of Structured Analytic Techniques, or is choosing between quality-of-information-check, ACH, key-assumptions-check, devils-advocacy, indicators of change, etc. Quality of Information Check is the default first step of any diagnostic run.

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 report or article needs to be split into individual claims before it is graded, cited or used as evidence — the user asks "what does this report actually claim?", "split this into claims", "separate the facts from the judgements", or another skill needs a claim list. Turns one document into five to twelve atomic claims, each typed (observation, attribution, assessment, actor claim, victim disclosure) and anchored to the verbatim sentence it rests on, so every extraction can be checked against the source. Preserves the source's own hedging. Does not grade. Invoked by /quality-of-information-check; its output feeds /ach, /key-assumptions-check, /intelligence-writing, /writing-assessments and /threat-actor-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。

Flip core assumptions to reveal hidden constraints and alternative approaches - "what if the opposite were true?"

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 GTM, sales, growth, or launch work needs a canonical product-marketing context document instead of ad hoc 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。

Founder Operating Context. Use to create or update the canonical founder/startup context document so every fundraising, growth, product, and recruiting workflow runs on concrete company facts instead of generic 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。

Develops comprehensive threat actor profiles for APT groups, criminal organizations, and hacktivist collectives by aggregating TTP documentation, historical campaign data, tooling fingerprints, and attribution indicators from multiple intelligence sources. Use when briefing executives on sector-specific threats, updating threat model assumptions, or prioritizing defensive controls against specific adversaries. Activates for requests involving MITRE ATT&CK Groups, Mandiant APT profiles, CrowdStrike adversary naming, or sector-specific threat briefings.

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 plan, feature, or launch needs an explicit adversarial pass to find weak assumptions, abuse cases, or strategic blind spots before execution.

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。

Pressure-test an assumption, decision, or inherited constraint — Socratic cross-examination that forces you to defend or abandon your position

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。

"Apply public choice theory to analyze political decision-making as rational self-interested behavior. Use this skill when the user needs to evaluate government policy failures, rent-seeking costs, voting outcomes, or bureaucratic incentives, especially when the assumption of benevolent government is questionable.".

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。

"Apply phenomenological methods including bracketing (epoche), lived experience inquiry, and Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to uncover the essence of human experience. Use this skill when the user needs to study how people experience a phenomenon from the first-person perspective, apply Husserlian descriptive or Heideggerian interpretive phenomenology, conduct IPA with idiographic focus, or when they ask 'what is the lived experience of X', 'how do I bracket my assumptions', or 'how do I do IPA'.".

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。

"Build three-statement financial models (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Cash Flow) with revenue forecasting, assumption management, and scenario analysis. Use this skill when the user needs to project financials, build a fundraising model, create financial projections for a business plan, or evaluate M&A targets — even if they say 'build a financial model', 'project our revenue', 'how much money will we make next year', or 'model this acquisition'.".

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。