「findings」の検索結果

Posts review findings from a JSON file as inline comments on a GitHub Pull Request, attaching each comment to its file and line. Use when you have a list/JSON of review findings (each with a file path, line number, and a message such as summary/failure_scenario) and want them published on a PR as inline review comments. Triggers include "post these review comments on the PR", "associate comments to files in the PR", "publish review findings to PR

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。

Guides privacy audit report writing including executive summary drafting, findings classification (critical, high, medium, low), evidence referencing, root cause analysis documentation, recommendation formulation, management response tracking, and report distribution protocols. Covers report structure from scope definition through appendices and sign-off. Keywords: audit report, findings documentation, executive summary, recommendations, report structure, privacy audit deliverables.

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。

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。

Audit whether a paper's baseline comparisons are COMPLETE, FAIR, and SIGNIFICANT: a required recent SOTA baseline is missing while 'best/SOTA' is claimed (HP-MISSING-BASELINE); a baseline is undertuned / given less compute-tuning-data, run at a mismatched config, or the equal-budget ablation-as-baseline is absent (HP-WEAK-BASELINE); 'outperforms' is asserted over overlapping error bars or with no variance/seeds (HP-SIG-OVERLAP); and a cross-row 'improves over baseline by X%' is arithmetically wrong (HP-DELTA-ERROR, cross-row form only). A versioned per-domain baseline profile + a live leaderboard/recency search are assembled by the EXECUTOR as structured facts; a fresh cross-model reviewer (gpt-5.6-sol xhigh, read-only, fresh thread per dimension) PROPOSES findings, each span-anchored to a ledger claim_id; tools/adjudicate_findings.py DECIDES the verdict. Works at L0 (stated comparisons) and deepens at L2 (configs/result files). A completeness question it cannot settle internally becomes needs_external_check, never a guessed missing baseline. Emits baseline-comparison-audit.findings.json; computes NO verdict. Detect-only. Triggers: "baseline audit", "missing baselines", "is the comparison fair", "weak baseline", "baseline 误报", "SOTA earned?".

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。

Suede AI blunt A-F ship grade for a code change across correctness, security and permissions, data and state, domain truth, UX and release behavior, tests and verification, and deploy readiness, with Instant-F triggers and evidence-based grade caps on auth, payment, migration, and public-API surfaces. Use when asked to grade this, give it a letter, is this an A, how ready is this to ship, or should this merge: when the caller wants the verdict without a findings list. NOT FOR: findings, evidence, and fix briefs (use suede-code-review, or suede-code for findings plus grade); enforcing the verdict in CI (use suede-ci-gate); eval coverage for AI behavior (use suede-ai-eval).

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。

Suede AI findings-only code review with full context: changed files, callers, contracts, and deploy surface. Covers TypeScript, React, Next.js, database, Swift/iOS, OWASP, accessibility, SEO, observability, commit hygiene, and deploy risk, ranked P0-P3 with file:line evidence and a fix path. Use when asked to review a diff, PR, branch, or commit range, find the bugs before merge, check a change for security or accessibility problems, or judge whether a change is safe to deploy. Emits findings and a ship gate, not a grade. NOT FOR: the A-F letter grade alone (use suede-code-grader); findings plus grade in one pass (use suede-code); making CI enforce the result on every merge (use suede-ci-gate); root-causing a live bug or failing test (a private Suede Labs companion, not in this pack).

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。

Track validated Codex Security findings in Linear, Jira, GitHub issues, or draft GitHub security advisories. Use it for one finding or an explicitly selected batch of up to 25 findings tracked as Linear, Jira, or GitHub issues. Includes duplicate checks, exact previews, approval-gated writes, and readback. Do not use it for scans or fixes.

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。

Structured GitHub issue creation from review findings or task breakdowns. Groups related findings into logical issues, applies labels, and produces issues with standard templates including summary, findings, and acceptance criteria. Designed to consume output from review-codebase or similar review skills.

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。

Generates specific, implementable fixes for every finding in findings.json. Produces code patches (unified diff), configuration changes, dependency updates, and IaC fixes — not generic advice but actual before/after code. Uses the reproduction command from each finding as the verification step: "run this after the fix — it should now fail." Stores remediation data in findings.json so the dashboard shows a Fix button and /gh-export includes the remediation in GitHub issues. Chains from /pentester, /codebase, or any scan skill after findings are produced. Chains into /gh-export for export with remediation included.

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。

Generates CVE request packages from pentest findings. Reads cve-candidates.json (auto-generated at pentest completion) or findings.json directly, then produces for each qualifying vulnerability: MITRE CVE form data, GitHub Security Advisory draft, full disclosure report, and vendor notification email. Invoke manually after a pentest engagement when you have true-positive findings that warrant CVE IDs.

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 agent when you need to extract and summarize key findings from scientific references that are relevant to a gene's function. This agent should be used after references have been identified in a gene review to provide detailed supporting evidence from the literature. The agent will look up cached publications and extract only the most relevant findings related to the gene's direct function, excluding irrelevant experimental details unless they directly inform gene function.

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。

Finalize an implemented rolling-wave slice for user review. Use when the user wants Codex to review the current branch state against a ready-for-review or in-review slice contract, confirm and fix required findings, repeat review and verification until no required findings remain, ask before accepting findings that materially change project shape or contradict project assumptions, record review state, and leave the clean slice in review for complete-slice.

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。

[Planning] Use when you need to auto-review a plan for validity, correctness, and best practices — recursive: review, validate findings with why-review, fix validated findings, full re-review until no findings.

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 WordPress draft posts from research findings — converts Paper Store research records or raw research data into publishable blog posts, buying guides, brand spotlights, and how-to articles. Use when the task asks to "turn research into a post", "create a blog post from findings", "publish my research", "research to content", or "write up the findings". Covers the full research-to-post pipeline with Paper Store integration.

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 validated research paper insights to the current project codebase — improving architecture, code patterns, testing strategies, documentation, or workflows based on empirical findings. Load when learn-from-paper routes insights to the current project, or when the user asks to apply paper findings to this project, improve this codebase with research, use this paper to improve my project, or apply research to my code. Also triggers on "apply this to my project", "how can this paper help my codebase", "use these findings here", "implement paper recommendations", "use research to improve my code". Always called AFTER learn-from-paper has completed credibility and security checks — never ingests papers directly.

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。

ReactやNext.jsのフォームやモーダルを、キーボード操作と画面読み上げに対応させるスキル。ラベル、エラー表示、フォーカス移動を実装・見直しします。

• フォームのラベルとエラー表示の改善
• ドロップダウンのキーボード操作確認
• モーダル開閉時のフォーカス管理

調査テーマを複数の問いに分け、ウェブ情報の検索と本文の読み込みを通じて、出典・確信度・情報不足を明記したレポートにまとめるスキル。

• 競合や市場動向を調べたいとき
• 導入前に技術を比較したいとき
• 市場規模や成長予測の調査

AIエージェントの不調を、指示・記憶・ツール実行・画面表示など12の層から調べるスキル。コードやログを根拠に原因を整理し、重要度順の指摘と修正案をまとめます。

• アプリ内だけで起きる不調を調べたいとき
• 過去の会話が混ざる原因を調査
• ツールの未実行や実行の誤報を確認

Ranks any list of impediments and their countermeasures using a value-stream scoring model (ROI, Cost to Implement, Ease of Deployment, Risk Factor) and a fixed prioritization formula. Use when someone asks to prioritize, rank, sequence, or triage impediments, countermeasures, remediation items, risks, findings, gaps, action items, or backlog entries; or mentions value-stream prioritization, A3 / lean countermeasure ranking, ROI vs. effort scoring, or building a remediation / improvement backlog. Works with GHQR findings, audit results, retrospective action items, risk registers, architecture review gaps, or any free-form `{impediment, countermeasure}` list.

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。

Enforce output quality, evidence verification, and quality gates across security audits. Use this skill when you perform SAST, SCA, threat modeling, or security code reviews. Use this skill to verify code locations and taint traces for all findings. Use this skill to prevent the suppression of valid security findings. Use this skill to evaluate reports against quality thresholds (score ≥ 8/10) before 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。

Claude Security: scan the codebase (the whole repository or a scoped part of it), scan changes (this branch's or a pull request's diff, or one commit), or suggest patches (findings turned into targeted patch files, each verified by a panel of agents, that you apply when you choose). Use when the user asks to scan, audit or check code with Claude Security, to scan their changes with Claude Security, or to fix or patch Claude Security findings.

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 automated AWS GuardDuty finding response pipelines using EventBridge and Lambda to trigger real-time incident response, automatically quarantine compromised resources, and route security notifications. Use when designing automated remediation playbooks for GuardDuty findings across VPC Flow Logs, CloudTrail, DNS, EKS, or S3 data events, or when reducing mean time to respond to cloud threats.

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。

Flag desktop<->den contract drift introduced by this diff. High findings gate Warden clearance; medium findings are advisory only.

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。