「iter」の検索結果

招聘与猎头 (招聘与猎头 (Recruiting & Executive Search) — 面向甲方招聘负责人/HR 与市场化猎头顾问「双侧视角」的『把一个模糊的用人需求，变成一个来得了、干得好、留得住的人』的判断体系；不是候选人一侧的求职与简历面经（那是 job-hunting-coach 的范围），也不是薪酬绩效/员工关系/组织发展的泛 HR 全模块，更不是劳动法条文解读。覆盖：(a) 第一性张力 —— 这行的核心世界观分歧：**需求诊断优先 ⇄ 快速供给优先**（用人经理提来的岗位需求几乎总是一张愿望清单，资深招聘先开 intake 会把『必须有』与『最好有』拆开、把画像逼成可证伪的成功标准；但按成单计酬的猎头把诊断时间压不进单价里，于是行业里同时存在『先诊断再搜寻』和『先扔简历再说』两种作业习惯）；**结构化面试 ⇄ 看人的直觉**（工业与组织心理学近一个世纪的效度元分析一致指向：结构化面试、工作样本、认知能力测验的预测效度明显高于非结构化面谈与经验年限，但一线用人经理绝大多数仍相信自己聊两句就能看准人——这是本行最大的知行落差，也是所有循证招聘流派的出发点；顺带一提，业内长期奉为圭臬的 Schmidt-Hunter 效度排序近年被重新校正，工作样本的效度被下调，这场修正本身就是本行必须如实呈现的争议）；**能力素质 ⇄ 文化匹配**（culture fit 既是最常被写在拒信里的理由，也是被批评得最凶的偏见外壳，Google 一派主张改口叫 culture add，看的是这个人补上了团队缺的东西，而不是像不像我们）；**主动寻访 sourcing ⇄ 被动投递漏斗**（高端与稀缺技能岗只有 outbound 人才地图一条路；量大岗位靠渠道效率、转化率与自动化，两条路的技能树几乎不重叠）；**人才地图是资产 ⇄ 人才地图是浪费**（保留制猎头把 mapping 当交付物的一部分，成功付费猎头认为地图做完单子已经黄了）；**保留制 retained ⇄ 成功付费 contingency**（按阶段预付、独家、深度地图 vs 多家赛马、入职才收钱、速度压倒深度；两种商业模式塑造出两种截然不同的作业节奏、候选人对待方式与职业道德边界，比如 off-limits 不挖回自己安置过的人）；**内部招聘团队 ⇄ 外部猎头与 RPO**（成本、速度、知识沉淀、雇主品牌归属谁的长期争论；embedded recruiter 是近年的折中）；**候选人体验 ⇄ 筛选效率**（漏斗越严体验越差，被拒者也是客户与口碑）；**AI 筛选的效率 ⇄ 合规与偏见**（简历解析、AI 面试评分、自动排序已在大规模使用，同时被监管盯上：纽约市 Local Law 144 要求自动化决策工具做偏见审计并公示、欧盟 AI 法案把招聘划为高风险场景、伊利诺伊州对 AI 视频面试单独立法；业内既离不开它，也在诉讼与审计里学做记录）；**offer 谈判的锚定 ⇄ 薪酬透明**（多地薪酬区间披露立法把谈判起点从『你现在多少』改成『这个岗位值多少』，问薪酬历史在不少法域已被禁止）；**counter-offer 该不该接**（猎头几乎一致反对，认为留下来的人多数一年内还是会走，但这条业内定论的证据基础本身也在被质疑）；**入职后早期流失算谁的**（保证期与退款条款把这场争论直接写进了合同）。(b) 工具栈 —— 申请人追踪系统 ATS（Greenhouse、Lever、Ashby、Workday Recruiting、SmartRecruiters、iCIMS、Taleo，中国侧 Moka、北森、大易、e成）、猎头 CRM 与交付系统（Bullhorn、Vincere、Loxo、Clockwork、Recruit CRM）、寻访与触达（LinkedIn Recruiter、SeekOut、hireEZ、Amazing Hiring、GitHub 与学术检索，中国侧 BOSS 直聘、猎聘、脉脉、拉勾、牛客）、评估与测评（HackerRank、CodeSignal、CoderPad、结构化面试题库与 scorecard 评分卡、Hogan、SHL、Predictive Index、Criteria、案例作业与工作样本）、面试调度与视频（GoodTime、Calendly、HireVue、Spark Hire）、背景调查与合规（HireRight、Checkr、Sterling，中国侧 i背调、八方锦程，以及个人信息保护法与 GDPR 下的授权链、FCRA 的不利行动通知）、数据与漏斗分析（time to fill 与 time to hire 的口径差异、offer 接受率、通过率与转化漏斗、quality of hire 的度量困境、招聘成本 cost per hire 的口径战争）、以及最被低估的纸笔工具（intake 提纲、成功标准清单、scorecard、人才地图表格、Boolean 检索式、一页纸的岗位价值主张）—— 选型的真正分岔从来不是功能清单，而是『你的岗位是靠触达赢还是靠转化赢』。(c) 心智模型层 —— 招聘是一次双向销售而不是一场考试；岗位画像要写成结果（这个人半年内要做成什么）而不是资历清单；信号与噪音（公司名与学历是弱信号，工作样本与具体行为证据是强信号）；结构化与评分卡的意义在于让判断可比而不是显得严谨；漏斗每一层都在丢人，所以要从入职倒推触达量；稀缺人才不看招聘广告，只在熟人与私域里流动；offer 是谈判也是承诺，谈崩与反悔的代价高度不对称；招聘的质量要到入职之后才结算。(d) 工作流 —— intake 需求诊断会、岗位画像与成功标准、渠道策略与人才地图 mapping、Boolean 与主动触达、简历筛选与电话初筛、结构化面试与 debrief 定校准、工作样本与技术评估、reference check 与背调、offer 设计与谈判、counter-offer 应对、入职前 no-show 防范与 pre-boarding、试用期与早期留存复盘、招聘漏斗与数据复盘、以及岗位关闭或撤销时的收尾。(e) 表达 DNA、质量基准（什么算一次好的招聘）、反模式（外行与新手最容易犯的错：照抄 JD、面试问脑筋急转弯、用薪酬历史锚定、把候选人当库存、背调走过场、offer 口头承诺）、智识谱系（工业与组织心理学的效度学派、循证与结构化招聘派、保留制高管寻访派、增长型 sourcing 与招聘运营派、雇主品牌与候选人体验派、中国互联网大厂的人才盘点与赛马派）。) Master OS — automated mastery of 招聘与猎头 (Recruiting & Executive Search) — 面向甲方招聘负责人/HR 与市场化猎头顾问「双侧视角」的『把一个模糊的用人需求，变成一个来得了、干得好、留得住的人』的判断体系；不是候选人一侧的求职与简历面经（那是 job-hunting-coach 的范围），也不是薪酬绩效/员工关系/组织发展的泛 HR 全模块，更不是劳动法条文解读。覆盖：(a) 第一性张力 —— 这行的核心世界观分歧：**需求诊断优先 ⇄ 快速供给优先**（用人经理提来的岗位需求几乎总是一张愿望清单，资深招聘先开 intake 会把『必须有』与『最好有』拆开、把画像逼成可证伪的成功标准；但按成单计酬的猎头把诊断时间压不进单价里，于是行业里同时存在『先诊断再搜寻』和『先扔简历再说』两种作业习惯）；**结构化面试 ⇄ 看人的直觉**（工业与组织心理学近一个世纪的效度元分析一致指向：结构化面试、工作样本、认知能力测验的预测效度明显高于非结构化面谈与经验年限，但一线用人经理绝大多数仍相信自己聊两句就能看准人——这是本行最大的知行落差，也是所有循证招聘流派的出发点；顺带一提，业内长期奉为圭臬的 Schmidt-Hunter 效度排序近年被重新校正，工作样本的效度被下调，这场修正本身就是本行必须如实呈现的争议）；**能力素质 ⇄ 文化匹配**（culture fit 既是最常被写在拒信里的理由，也是被批评得最凶的偏见外壳，Google 一派主张改口叫 culture add，看的是这个人补上了团队缺的东西，而不是像不像我们）；**主动寻访 sourcing ⇄ 被动投递漏斗**（高端与稀缺技能岗只有 outbound 人才地图一条路；量大岗位靠渠道效率、转化率与自动化，两条路的技能树几乎不重叠）；**人才地图是资产 ⇄ 人才地图是浪费**（保留制猎头把 mapping 当交付物的一部分，成功付费猎头认为地图做完单子已经黄了）；**保留制 retained ⇄ 成功付费 contingency**（按阶段预付、独家、深度地图 vs 多家赛马、入职才收钱、速度压倒深度；两种商业模式塑造出两种截然不同的作业节奏、候选人对待方式与职业道德边界，比如 off-limits 不挖回自己安置过的人）；**内部招聘团队 ⇄ 外部猎头与 RPO**（成本、速度、知识沉淀、雇主品牌归属谁的长期争论；embedded recruiter 是近年的折中）；**候选人体验 ⇄ 筛选效率**（漏斗越严体验越差，被拒者也是客户与口碑）；**AI 筛选的效率 ⇄ 合规与偏见**（简历解析、AI 面试评分、自动排序已在大规模使用，同时被监管盯上：纽约市 Local Law 144 要求自动化决策工具做偏见审计并公示、欧盟 AI 法案把招聘划为高风险场景、伊利诺伊州对 AI 视频面试单独立法；业内既离不开它，也在诉讼与审计里学做记录）；**offer 谈判的锚定 ⇄ 薪酬透明**（多地

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。

Automated iterative agent runner for spec-based development in Kiro. Wraps kiro-cli in a self-correcting bash loop that picks up tasks from a Kiro spec, implements them one at a time, verifies against exit criteria, and accumulates corrections and codebase patterns across iterations. Use this skill when the user mentions "ralph loop", "ralph", "spec loop", "iterative spec runner", "run my spec tasks automatically", "kiro spec automation", "self-correcting agent loop", "implement spec tasks in a loop", "run kiro-cli in a loop", "automated task implementation", or wants to drive a Kiro spec to completion through repeated agent iterations. Also use when the user wants to set up, configure, troubleshoot, or understand the Ralph Loop workflow — including progress tracking, corrections, codebase patterns, timing logs, and the summary dashboard.

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。

🇺🇸 Your dev team ships features nobody asked for while user-reported bugs pile up for months. Operations blames engineering for ignoring users; engineering blames operations for not understanding technical constraints. This gives you the complete Product × Engineering × Operations alignment SOP — from unified backlog to 10-day sprint cadence to veto power rules. What's inside: • Dual-layer Kanban system (master backlog + sprint board with unified tagging) • 10-day sprint standard process (Day 1 dev → Day 6 testable build → Day 10 ship) • Issue template with reproducibility requirements (3x reported = auto-severe) • Tri-party alignment meetings (daily standup / sprint planning / sprint review) • Operations veto power on releases (P0 bug = block shipping) • User feedback → product iteration closed loop (beta testing + interview SOP) • Core metrics framework (acquisition → activation → retention → monetization → referral) • Technical debt management (20-30% sprint capacity reserved) • Ready-to-use templates: Bug Report, Sprint Planning, Responsibility Matrix Built from: Real product strategy meetings + beta testing frameworks. References Supabase sprint model, Manus/DeepSeek commercialization alignment. By @WeiYipei. 🇨🇳 你的研发团队在做没人要的新功能，用户反馈的 Bug 堆了三个月没人动。运营觉得研发不听用户，研发觉得运营不懂技术。这份 SOP 给你从统一看板到 10 天迭代节奏到一票否决权的完整产研运协同框架。 🇯🇵 開発チームは誰も求めていない機能を作り、ユーザーから報告されたバグは何ヶ月も放置。このSOPは、統一バックログから10日スプリント、リリース拒否権まで、プロダクト×エンジニアリング×オペレーションの完全な連携フレームワークを提供します。 🇰🇷 개발팀은 아무도 요청하지 않은 기능을 만들고, 사용자가 보고한 버그는 몇 달째 방치됩니다. 이 SOP는 통합 백로그부터 10일 스프린트, 릴리스 거부권까지 제품×개발×운영 완전 협업 프레임워크를 제공합니다. Triggers: "product ops" | "engineering operations" | "product development SOP" | "sprint planning" | "iteration management" | "cross-functional alignment" | "product engineering ops" | "dev ops collaboration" | "产研运协同" | "迭代管理" | "产品研发运营" | "プロダクト開発運営" | "제품개발운영"

"Conduct a systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework with explicit search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment, and transparent synthesis. Use this skill when the user needs to design a reproducible literature search, apply PRISMA flow documentation, develop inclusion and exclusion criteria, assess study quality, or when they ask 'how do I do a systematic review', 'what is PRISMA', or 'how do I make my literature review reproducible'.".

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。

Write a literature review. Use when the user says "literature review", "lit review", "review the literature", "summarize prior research", "what does the research say about", "synthesize research on", "background section", "related work section", "what has been studied on this topic", or needs to systematically identify, synthesize, and critically evaluate existing research on a topic - even if they don't explicitly say "literature 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。

Write personalized pitch emails to journalists, podcasters, newsletter writers, and analysts using AIDA adapted for media pitching and Ryan Holiday's journalist psychology from "Trust Me I'm Lying." Different from press releases (use /press-release-writer for those). Use when the user asks to pitch a journalist, pitch a reporter, "get coverage in X", media outreach, podcast pitch, analyst briefing request, or wants to land a story. Reads brand voice and positioning from knowledge/. For the press release itself, see press-release-writer. For the underlying customer story, see case-study-writer.

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 writing acceptance criteria for Salesforce features, structuring UAT test scripts from user stories, classifying defects found during UAT, or planning regression testing before a Salesforce release. Trigger keywords: UAT, user acceptance testing, test script, acceptance criteria, defect classification, regression testing, test plan, test case. NOT for Given/When/Then AC syntax — use admin/acceptance-criteria-given-when-then. NOT for the per-case field schema and AC-to-case decomposition — use admin/uat-test-case-design. NOT for automated Flow or Apex test coverage — use flow/flow-testing. Also covers: UAT plan record, sandbox selection for UAT, pre-UAT environment checklist, sandbox email deliverability for testers, test-user personas, negative and bulk coverage, defect triage categories, go/no-go sign-off, quick-deploy window.

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。

Synthesizes actionable feedback from validation results, confidence scores, and iteration triggers. Creates structured improvement guidance for re-execution. Activate on 'synthesize feedback', 'improvement suggestions', 'actionable feedback', 'iteration guidance', 'feedback generation'. NOT for iteration detection (use dag-iteration-detector) or convergence tracking (use dag-convergence-monitor).

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。

Remote-sensing literature search, citation verification, sensor/platform/dataset query strategy, citation file management (.ris/.bib/.enw conversion), and reference management (BibTeX, related articles, DOI/arXiv lookup) across CrossRef, arXiv, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Semantic Scholar, and domain web sources. Use when the user needs coordinated multi-step literature workflows for remote sensing, Earth observation, geospatial AI, GIScience, photogrammetry, SAR, hyperspectral imaging, LiDAR, satellite missions, benchmark datasets, land-cover mapping, change detection, object detection, segmentation, retrieval, or multimodal remote-sensing foundation models. Also trigger on general literature-search needs during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as searching for papers/literature, doing a literature review, verifying a citation, converting citation files, and Chinese phrasings like 文献检索、查文献、找文献、 文献综述检索、查论文、引文核对、参考文献管理、文献去重.

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 fallback for CBaseEntity_ModifyOrAppendCriteria (auto-generated, category: vfunc). Locate CBaseEntity::ModifyOrAppendCriteria in the CS2 server module via IDA Pro MCP and emit a fresh, minimal-unique artifact. The deterministic preprocessor could not resolve this symbol on the current gamever - your job is the re-sign. Trigger: CBaseEntity_ModifyOrAppendCriteria, CBaseEntity::ModifyOrAppendCriteria

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。

Plan and synthesize a source-grounded multi-paper literature review. Use for systematic literature reviews, survey matrices, inclusion/exclusion criteria, research gaps, or "review the literature on X" requests; do not use for reviewing one paper, ordinary web summaries, citation formatting only, or medical/legal conclusions.

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。

Synthesizes evidence-linked feedback from validation results, confidence evidence, and iteration triggers. Proposes bounded revision guidance for a stated acceptance failure. Activate on 'synthesize feedback', 'improvement suggestions', 'actionable feedback', 'iteration guidance', 'feedback generation'. NOT for iteration detection (use dag-iteration-detector) or convergence tracking (use dag-convergence-monitor).

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エージェントが実装の多くを担う開発チーム向けに、計画、責任分担、レビュー基準、テスト要件を整理し、生成コードを扱う開発プロセスを設計するスキル。

• AI生成コードを扱う開発ルールの整備
• コードレビュー基準と承認条件の設定
• エージェントが作業しやすい設計の検討

Write, update, and review Mintlify MDX documentation for Bifrost features. Explores the full codebase (UI, Go backend, config schema), validates config.json examples, places screenshot placeholders, and presents outlines for approval before writing. Invoked with /docs-writer <feature-name>, /docs-writer update <doc-path>, or /docs-writer review <doc-path>.

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。

Migration guide from Jupiter Metis (v1) or Ultra to Swap API v2. Use when migrating existing Jupiter swap integrations, updating base URLs, or transitioning from quote+swap-instructions to the unified build endpoint.

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 for project-scoped literature review built on Sources/Papers, with synthesis landing in Knowledge, writing handoff in Writing, and the default literature canvas under Maps/literature.canvas.

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。

Conduct comprehensive, systematic literature reviews using multiple academic databases (PubMed, arXiv, bioRxiv, Semantic Scholar, etc.). This skill should be used when conducting systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, research synthesis, or comprehensive literature searches across biomedical, scientific, and technical domains. Creates professionally formatted markdown documents and PDFs with verified citations in multiple citation styles (APA, Nature, Vancouver, etc.).

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。

Generate a complete academic literature survey from scratch using multi-agent orchestration. Searches academic databases (OpenAlex, CrossRef, Unpaywall), downloads PDFs, builds BibTeX, drafts a LaTeX review, compiles it, reviews for quality, and revises based on feedback — all automated. Use this skill whenever the user asks to "generate a literature review", "write a survey paper", "review recent papers on [topic]", "create a survey of [field]", "综述", "文献综述", "survey papers in top journals", or wants a multi-agent pipeline to produce a publishable-quality literature review. Also trigger when the user wants to search multiple journals for papers on a topic and synthesize findings into a structured document. Works for any academic field but optimized for economics journals.

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。

Guide users through writing a systematic literature review (SLR) following the PRISMA 2020 framework. Use this skill whenever the user mentions 'systematic review', 'systematic literature review', 'SLR', 'PRISMA', 'PRISMA 2020', 'PRISMA flow diagram', 'PRISMA checklist', or asks for help writing, structuring, or auditing a literature review that follows reporting guidelines. Also trigger when the user asks about inclusion/exclusion criteria for a review, search strategies for databases like Scopus/WoS/PubMed, study selection processes, risk of bias assessment, or narrative synthesis for a review paper. This skill covers the full PRISMA 2020 checklist (27 items), produces a Word document manuscript in strict journal article format, generates an annotated PRISMA flow diagram, and enforces APA 7th Edition referencing throughout. It does NOT cover meta-analysis or statistical pooling. By Chuah Kee Man.

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。

Conduct comprehensive, systematic literature reviews using multiple academic databases (PubMed, arXiv, bioRxiv, Semantic Scholar, etc.). This skill should be used when conducting systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, research synthesis, or comprehensive literature searches across biomedical, scientific, and technical domains. Creates professionally formatted markdown documents and PDFs with verified citations in multiple citation styles (APA, Nature, Vancouver, etc.).

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。

Conduct comprehensive, systematic literature reviews using multiple academic databases (PubMed, arXiv, bioRxiv, Semantic Scholar, etc.). This skill should be used when conducting systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, research synthesis, or comprehensive literature searches across biomedical, scientific, and technical domains. Creates professionally formatted markdown documents and PDFs with verified citations in multiple citation styles (APA, Nature, Vancouver, etc.).

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 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。

How to author a content brief that actually guides a writer (human or AI) to produce a piece that ranks, converts, or both. Per-piece editorial brief: target keyword and cluster, search intent, audience and JTBD, heading structure, entity coverage for AEO/GEO, internal linking strategy, success criteria. The middle path between thin briefs (a keyword and a deadline) and thick briefs (a 4-page document nobody reads). Triggers on content brief, brief the writer, brief the article, brief authoring, content brief template, brief audit, per-piece brief, editorial brief, target keyword brief, search intent brief. Also triggers when briefing a human writer or an AI agent on a single content piece.

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。

Universal discipline for any LM-driven loop — agent retries, plan-act-observe, multi-agent handoffs, optimiser passes, test-fix cycles. Encodes the one rule every framework documents quietly and every team relearns expensively: the LM in the loop is NEVER a reliable terminator. Termination must be provided by an explicit counter + exit predicate + stagnation signal + escalation path that live OUTSIDE the LM's control. This is a tool- level, framework-agnostic skill. It maps onto LangGraph (recursion_limit + state counter + interrupt), CrewAI (max_iter + max_rpm + human_input), Claude / OpenAI SDKs (max_iterations + tool_use_budget), DSPy (declared evaluation budget), Aider (REPL + explicit retry cap), and AutoGen (max_consecutive_auto_reply). Search keywords: infinite loop, recursion limit, recursion_limit, GraphRecursionError, max iterations, max_iter, agent stuck, agent won't stop, runaway agent, ReAct loop not terminating, agent repeating itself.

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。