「evidence」の検索結果

Organizes the evidence and competitive landscape around a drug, target, or pathway by separating disease relevance, tractability, preclinical evidence, clinical evidence, modality fit, and crowding. Always map what is biologically supported, what is druggable, what has actually advanced, and what remains strategically open. Never confuse target relevance with druggability, preclinical activity with clinical promise, or narrative excitement with validated development maturity. Never fabricate references, trial status, approval status, company activity, or asset metadata.

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。

Classify constitutional (germline) copy number variants for clinical reporting using the 2019 ACMG/ClinGen technical standards points-based framework, with ClassifyCNV and AnnotSV for semi-automated scoring. Covers the separate copy-number-loss and copy-number-gain rubrics, the five-tier classification, ClinGen haploinsufficiency/triplosensitivity and dosage-sensitive regions, de novo and segregation evidence, and population-frequency benign evidence. Use when assigning pathogenic/likely-pathogenic/VUS/likely-benign/benign to a constitutional CNV, scoring a CNV against ACMG/ClinGen criteria, or distinguishing the automatable evidence from the case-specific evidence requiring manual input.

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。

Produce honest product reviews and buying guides without fabricated first-hand experience, using disclosed evidence tiers: verified specs, owner-experience synthesis at scale, expert triangulation, and hands-on only when true. Use this skill whenever the user wants to write product reviews or buying guides without hands-on access, set up a review methodology, add evidence disclosure to review content, align reviews with Google's reviews system or FTC affiliate disclosure expectations, or decide when Review and Product schema are honest to use. Triggers on product review, buying guide, best-of list, review methodology, evidence basis, hands-on testing, we tested, affiliate review site, review disclosure, methodology block, original research, reviews system. Also triggers when review content claims testing that did not happen, or when an affiliate site needs a trust mechanism that survives scrutiny.

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。

Bind addressable evidence IDs from `papers/evidence_bank.jsonl` to each subsection (H3), producing `outline/evidence_bindings.jsonl`.

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。

Evidence self-loop for surveys: read evidence bindings + evidence packs, then write an actionable upstream TODO plan (which stage/skill to fix) before writing more prose.

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。

Conducts digital forensics investigations following a personal data breach, covering evidence preservation, chain of custody documentation, log analysis, scope determination, and root cause analysis. References industry-standard tools including Splunk, ELK Stack, and Wireshark. Provides forensic workflow from initial evidence collection through final investigation report. Keywords: digital forensics, breach investigation, evidence preservation, chain of custody, root cause analysis, Splunk, ELK, Wireshark.

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。

Produce visual PR evidence — a screenshot or video — whenever a change has on-screen impact. Tests are never a substitute; a change can be backend by cause and visible by effect. Capture via the project's e2e harness on a pu box, or by driving a live kolu with the chrome-devtools MCP; host on a GitHub release and post a `## Evidence` comment. Triggers on "post evidence", "screenshot the change", "record a video of this", "show it working", "prove it", or finishing any change whose effect is visible on screen.

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。

Evaluating the quality, provenance, and relevance of evidence that supports or undermines a claim. Covers source credibility, sampling quality, study design, levels of evidence (anecdote to meta-analysis), base rate integration, distinguishing primary from secondary sources, and calibrating belief to evidence strength. Use when the question is not whether an argument is valid but whether its premises are actually supported by the available data.

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。

Consult this skill BEFORE proposing a fix to any CLI gap or schema gap that touches evidence, trust magnitude, evidence types, evidence grades, the TM formula, or star-level promotion gates. Also read it whenever an issue mentions citations, stars, commits, contributors, views, reviewers, percentile, arxiv, github-stars-own, repo-own, social-signal, benchmark-result, peer-review, self-attestation, fusion-recipe, verifier-attestation, or proxy-containment — those are the 10 canonical evidence types and the raw inputs that feed their formulas. Also read it when asked whether a skill qualifies for a given star level (0★–6★): the Star Bar and promotion gates live in `META.md`, not in the TM methodology page. Reading both prevents proposing a calibration that satisfies the TM grade threshold but violates a Star Bar installability or link requirement.

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 this skill when the user wants the full existing-registry Trust Magnitude inspector: understand why a named Gaia skill has a particular star rank, what its Trust Magnitude (TM) score is, which evidence rows are contributing (or dead), how far it is from the next grade, or what evidence to add to move the needle. Also use when asked for a full leaderboard of all named skills ranked by TM. Triggers: "why does X have 3 stars", "what's the TM for X", "inspect TM", "explain the score for X", "what evidence would rank up X", "show leaderboard", "rank all skills by TM", "what's dragging down X's score", "dead evidence rows", "how close is X to grade A/S".

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 this skill when the user wants to understand why a named Gaia skill has a particular star rank, what its Trust Magnitude (TM) score is, which evidence rows are contributing (or dead), how far it is from the next grade, or what evidence to add to move the needle. Also use when asked for a full leaderboard of all named skills ranked by TM. Triggers: "why does X have 3 stars", "what's the TM for X", "inspect TM", "explain the score for X", "what evidence would rank up X", "show leaderboard", "rank all skills by TM", "what's dragging down X's score", "dead evidence rows", "how close is X to grade A/S".

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。

Atomically ingest one already-verified evidence row into one named Gaia skill using the CLI, then appraise Trust Magnitude and propose—never silently apply—a calibration. Use after /ev-pipeline has verified an approved intake source, or whenever a curator says "ingest evidence", "add verified evidence", "gaia-ingest", or "turn this source into registry 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。

Collects volatile evidence from a potentially compromised host in correct order of volatility: memory, network state, running processes, logged-on users, and open handles, while preserving integrity and minimizing footprint. Activates for requests to collect volatile evidence, perform live response, or capture host state before shutdown.

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。

Classify constitutional (germline) copy number variants for clinical reporting using the 2019 ACMG/ClinGen technical standards points-based framework, with ClassifyCNV and AnnotSV for semi-automated scoring. Covers the separate copy-number-loss and copy-number-gain rubrics, the five-tier classification, ClinGen haploinsufficiency/triplosensitivity and dosage-sensitive regions, de novo and segregation evidence, and population-frequency benign evidence. Use when assigning pathogenic/likely-pathogenic/VUS/likely-benign/benign to a constitutional CNV, scoring a CNV against ACMG/ClinGen criteria, or distinguishing the automatable evidence from the case-specific evidence requiring manual input.

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。

Web サーバ（nginx/apache、Linux 中心）の Phase 1 設定セキュリティレビュー。 target_profile.yaml で対象を確定し、MANIFEST.txt + manifest_attestation.txt で証跡 integrity を検証。 SSH 直接または証跡受領モードで 9 観点 (OS/リソース/ログ/ネットワーク/サービス/認証/監視/バックアップ/証明書) を read-only 走査。6 階層ガード (allowed/conditional/conditional_sensitive/ask-first/exceptional_sensitive_read/forbidden)、 3 軸補助 (Exploitability/Blast Radius/Service Criticality) の重大度判定、 observation_status による未確認の独立管理、evidence_dir/raw_evidence_store 分離、自己レビュー必須。 Windows/IIS は v1 hard fail。 Use when: Web サーバの設定セキュリティレビュー、Phase 1 監査、nginx/apache 構成監査、 EOL ランタイム調査、ログローテーション不備調査、ドキュメントルート漏えい調査。

Self-review, audit, or verify CS/AI/ML paper drafts as a critical peer reviewer. Three-round review (evidence→argument→style) with Verification Status and debt tracking. Use when: reviewing a paper draft before submission, checking evidence compliance of claims, simulating peer reviewer feedback, verifying citation closure and evidence debts, performing cross-section consistency checks. Triggers on: 审修, self review, 自查, verification, revise, 修订, check draft, 审稿, evidence compliance, peer review, 论文审查, draft audit, 验证论文, 检查引用, cross-section 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。

Classify constitutional (germline) copy number variants for clinical reporting using the 2019 ACMG/ClinGen technical standards points-based framework, with ClassifyCNV and AnnotSV for semi-automated scoring. Covers the separate copy-number-loss and copy-number-gain rubrics, the five-tier classification, ClinGen haploinsufficiency/triplosensitivity and dosage-sensitive regions, de novo and segregation evidence, and population-frequency benign evidence. Use when assigning pathogenic/likely-pathogenic/VUS/likely-benign/benign to a constitutional CNV, scoring a CNV against ACMG/ClinGen criteria, or distinguishing the automatable evidence from the case-specific evidence requiring manual input.

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。

Classify constitutional (germline) copy number variants for clinical reporting using the 2019 ACMG/ClinGen technical standards points-based framework, with ClassifyCNV and AnnotSV for semi-automated scoring. Covers the separate copy-number-loss and copy-number-gain rubrics, the five-tier classification, ClinGen haploinsufficiency/triplosensitivity and dosage-sensitive regions, de novo and segregation evidence, and population-frequency benign evidence. Use when assigning pathogenic/likely-pathogenic/VUS/likely-benign/benign to a constitutional CNV, scoring a CNV against ACMG/ClinGen criteria, or distinguishing the automatable evidence from the case-specific evidence requiring manual input.

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。

Verify every visual-evidence artifact (screenshot/GIF/recording) attached to a PR carries a provenance manifest binding it to real daemon-backed truth — daemon port, run id, transcript head hash, agent node id, commit, and an honest real/fixture/mock source label — and that operator-control-panel PRs cover the required set of proof states. Use when gating a PR's proof artifacts before merge, auditing whether a "LIVE" visual claim is backed by a real daemon run versus a reused or fixture-backed mock, or defining the required state-coverage set for a control-panel change. NOT for the capture technique itself — headless Playwright, `screencapture -x -l`, non-interruptive capture (use port-daddy-agent-skill's visual-evidence doctrine), designing the receipt body schema an artifact attaches to (use agent-work-receipt-designer), or the broader dogfood/Potemkin product-quality bar (use multi-agent-authoring-product-bar).

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。

Slackの認証やメッセージ操作、OpenClawの受信・返信を検証するスキル。APIで確かめた結果と実際の画面操作を区別し、証拠と後片付けを確認します。

• Slackの認証やアクセス権の確認
• メッセージの作成・編集・削除テスト
• OpenClawの受信・返信の検証

Discordのテスト用ボットで接続情報や読み取り権限を確認し、メッセージ・ファイル・スレッド操作やOpenClawの応答を証拠付きで検証するスキル。

• ボットの識別情報と読み取り権限確認
• メッセージ・ファイル・スレッド検証
• OpenClawの返信・逐次送信・入力表示検証

コード変更を確認する人に向けて、図や差分による要約、変更前後の動作証拠、取り消しやすさと影響範囲を短く整理したプルリクエスト本文を書くスキル。

• プルリクエスト本文を作成したいとき
• 構成変更をツリーや差分で説明したいとき
• 画面変更の前後を証拠で示したいとき

写真や動画、公開記録の少ない手がかりをつなぎ、場所・日時・組織の関係などを検証します。根拠と仮説を分け、反証や未確認事項も整理する調査スキル。

• 公共の場所を写した写真の位置確認
• 公開記録からイベントの時系列を調べたいとき
• 企業とドメインの関係調査

プロジェクト文書の整理依頼を適切な専門スキルへ振り分け、文書の役割、リンク、設計判断の索引、根拠への参照を、ファイルを変更せずに点検するスキルです。

• プロジェクト文書の整理手順を選びたいとき
• 既存文書の情報源を把握したいとき
• ローカルリンクと設計判断の索引の点検