「feasibility」の検索結果

Two related workflows for a locally-cloned codebase, in one skill. Documentation mode produces a single, comprehensive, verifiable architecture document primarily by reading files on disk (local-first) — use it whenever the user wants to understand, map, document, research, or onboard onto a codebase ("research this repo", "write up the architecture", "do an architecture deep dive", "document how this codebase works", "map the system design", "create an onboarding doc"). Modernization mode generates a phased plan to modernize, migrate, upgrade, or rewrite a legacy system ("modernize this", "plan the migration", "how would we rewrite this", "how do we get off this legacy stack"); if no architecture document exists yet it first runs Documentation mode, then continues straight through to the plan. It assumes the legacy stack may be dead, runs a time-boxed feasibility spike, and picks the highest achievable rung on a safety ladder instead of demanding a fully-green legacy CI gate up front.

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 designing a prospective clinical study before submission — selecting and classifying endpoints (primary / key-secondary / exploratory, with surrogate-endpoint flagging), estimating sample size and power for two-arm designs (means / proportions / survival), or scoring a study plan for feasibility and a GO / GO-WITH-CONDITIONS / REDESIGN / NO-GO phase-gate decision. Every output is an ESTIMATE plus a named human owner (clinician / biostatistician / regulatory owner) — never clinical fact, never a finished protocol. Distinct from ra-qm-team, which handles the regulatory/QM submission (ISO 13485, EU MDR, FDA 510(k)/PMA/QSR), not the study design.

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。

Identify risky assumptions for a feature idea in an existing product across Value, Usability, Viability, and Feasibility. Uses multi-perspective devil's advocate thinking. Use when stress-testing a feature idea, doing risk assessment, or preparing for assumption mapping.

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 main results pass result-to-claim (`claim_supported = yes` or `partial`) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission. A secondary Codex agent designs ablations from a reviewer's perspective; the local executor reviews feasibility and implements.

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。

Find and assess datasets for a research question. Dispatches Explorer agents to search across data source categories, then Explorer-Critic to stress-test each candidate. Produces a ranked list with feasibility grades. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants to identify or evaluate data sources — not to search for papers or run analysis. Triggers include: "find data", "what data should I use", "find a dataset for this", "where can I get data on X", "assess datasets", "what datasets exist for", "help me find data", "is there data on this", "what are my data options", "I need data for this project", or any request to locate empirical data sources for a research question.

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。

Assess whether source code is ready to deploy to Azure — the check BEFORE infrastructure work. Evaluates build health, app completeness, dependencies and local services, stack compatibility, and deployment feasibility. Answers questions about what your app needs before it can be deployed — frameworks, dependencies, and configuration. Checks whether dependencies are compatible and identifies deployment blockers and unsupported frameworks. WHEN: "evaluate my repo", "is my app ready to deploy", "what does my app need to deploy", "what do I need before deploying", "does my app need", "can I ship this to Azure", "scan my repo for issues", "is this app deployable", "check if my app is ready for Azure", "do I need a Dockerfile", "what's blocking my deployment", "are there any blockers", "are my dependencies compatible", "does Azure support my framework", "what needs to change before deploying", "check my app configuration".

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。

Improve the clarity and voice of AI-assisted academic writing (papers, theses, rebuttals) and funding proposals (NSF Project Summary/Description, NIH Specific Aims): preserve scholarly conventions, match claims to evidence (and, for proposals, claims to feasibility), and match the author's own voice. It never changes a number, result, or citation, and it is not for evading AI-use disclosure. Use when editing AI-assisted academic prose or grant proposals.

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。

Simulate structured grant peer review for biomedical proposals; use when stress-testing significance, innovation, approach, feasibility, and reviewer-facing weaknesses before 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。

Designs a translational blueprint for moving a biomedical finding toward diagnosis, prognosis, treatment response prediction, patient stratification, or therapeutic development, with explicit translational milestones, validation thresholds, and feasibility-sensitive route 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。

Designs primary, secondary, and exploratory endpoints for biomedical and clinical research protocols. Always use this skill when a user needs to translate study aims into operational endpoint definitions with event rules, assessment timing, composite logic, interpretability, and protocol-stage auditability. Focus on endpoint precision, feasibility, clinical meaning, ambiguity reduction, and implementation readiness rather than generic study design advice.

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 sample size estimation logic, power assumptions, feasibility checks, and fallback enrollment strategies for clinical and translational study protocols.

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。

Designs cell-based and animal-based validation plans that translate computational, omics, biomarker, genetic, or clinical findings into experimentally testable validation routes. Always use this skill whenever a user wants to move from an in silico, statistical, or clinical association finding toward wet-lab validation using cell systems, organoid-like systems, xenograft or genetically relevant animal models. It should define the exact claim to test, separate mechanism-testing from association-support and translational-support goals, choose the best-fit model family, specify perturbation strategy, readouts, controls, sequencing of experiments, and four workload configurations (Lite / Standard / Advanced / Publication+) with one recommended primary plan. Never fabricate model availability, reagent availability, species relevance, assay feasibility, phenotype penetrance, expected effect sizes, validation success, or literature references.

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。

Deterministic handbook-grounded retrieval and thermocouple computations for reflow profile compliance outputs such as ramp, TAL, peak, feasibility, and selection.

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 day-ahead or multi-period unit commitment problems, including thermal on/off schedules, dispatch, startup/shutdown logic, minimum up/down time, ramping, spinning reserve deliverability, renewable curtailment, operating-cost accounting, and independent feasibility checks for power-system operations schedules.

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。

Adversarial plan review by 3 independent reviewers (Feasibility, Completeness, Scope & Alignment) before presenting to user.

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。

Assess whether source code is ready to deploy to Azure — the check BEFORE infrastructure work. Evaluates build health, app completeness, dependencies and local services, stack compatibility, and deployment feasibility. Answers questions about what your app needs before it can be deployed — frameworks, dependencies, and configuration. Checks whether dependencies are compatible and identifies deployment blockers and unsupported frameworks. WHEN: "evaluate my repo", "is my app ready to deploy", "what does my app need to deploy", "what do I need before deploying", "does my app need", "can I ship this to Azure", "scan my repo for issues", "is this app deployable", "check if my app is ready for Azure", "do I need a Dockerfile", "what's blocking my deployment", "are there any blockers", "are my dependencies compatible", "does Azure support my framework", "what needs to change before deploying", "check my app configuration".

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。

Experiment design reference for problem-class framing, Minimum Viable Experiment coaching, hypothesis formation, vetting and red flags, and experiment readiness. Use when translating a stated business outcome into candidate data-science problem classes, or when framing, vetting, scoping, or evaluating an experiment of any kind, including data feasibility, architecture, LLM, performance, use-case, UX, prototyping, and hardware experiments.

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 scoping or sanity-checking a research question for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — fit, theory-drivenness, and feasibility. Decides whether the idea can earn a theoretical contribution; it does not build the theory itself (use amj-theory-development) or position the literature (amj-literature-positioning).

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 running VALIDATE V2-V3 fan-out. Two-layer investigation (4 dimension agents + per-section feasibility agents) synthesized into PASS/CONDITIONAL/BLOCKED net gate. Strategy-agnostic.

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 SPEC, INNOVATE, or VALIDATE (Layer 2) approach hinges on an unverified runtime/library/external mechanism: run a probe from the 8-family taxonomy and produce a VIABLE/NOT-VIABLE/INCONCLUSIVE VERDICT artifact.

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。

Compare competing customer use cases by value, feasibility and evidence. Use when several problems compete for delivery capacity.

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 original, competition-ready commercial mediation problems and confidential packets with iterative validation. Use when a user provides a topic, industry, dispute sketch, or existing general-information packet and wants a public packet plus confidential packets for both sides—or one named side. Build a narrow but workable settlement corridor; verify factual and numerical consistency, information asymmetry, balance, originality, and commercial feasibility; and revise until deterministic and semantic exit criteria pass. Do not use merely to summarize an existing packet or to advise parties in a real dispute. Requires local file access; Python 3 is recommended for bundled deterministic checks, with disclosed manual fallbacks when unavailable.

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。

Structure a student's self-determined project with mentoring checkpoints, competency alignment, and reflection. Use when guiding student-led projects within a competency-based 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。

Run a large-scale language migration with the six-step process: create the map and the rules, stress-test the rules, translate everything, compile, run it, match behavior. Use when the user wants to migrate, port, or rewrite a codebase from one language to another ("migrate this to Rust", "port our Python CLI to TypeScript", "should we rewrite this in Go?"), or asks for a migration feasibility assessment. Not for incremental JS→TS adoption — that needs no machinery — or single-file conversions.

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。