「revision」の検索結果

Use when responding to an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) proposal decision or full-review referee letter — framework/attitude asks, coverage gaps, balance complaints, and accessibility. Drafts the response letter and revision plan; it does not run the portal preflight (amann-submission) or redesign the framework from scratch (amann-organizing-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。

Trace bugs and manual fixes back to kits and prompts; fix at the source so the iteration loop can reproduce the fix autonomously. Six-step revision process plus the single-failure backpropagation protocol. Use when a manual hot-fix has been applied, when convergence stalls, or when the same class of bug keeps reappearing.

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。

Select evidence-based study strategies matched to material type, learning goal, and student habits. Use when advising students on revision techniques, homework, or independent study approaches.

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 and revise academic papers with a senior-reviewer workflow. Use when an AI research/coding agent needs to work on an existing paper draft, PDF, LaTeX project, Word document, markdown manuscript, rejected paper, or paper idea that already has a concrete direction, and produce: paper maps, weakness audits, insight/novelty checks, reviewer objections, claim-experiment matrices, theory/proof checks, experiment plans, statistics/reproducibility audits, figure/table audits, ethics/compliance checks, revision plans, detailed section edits, or final submission checklists.

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 social science academic paper drafting, outlining, diagnosis, review, and revision. Trigger for topic diagnosis, research question refinement, literature review planning, CNKI/Google Scholar literature search-to-Zotero workflows, structured paper reading notes, theoretical framework design, research design critique, draft review, section or paragraph revision, citation and evidence risk checking, causal-claim checking, and pre-submission review. Do not use for purely creative writing or non-academic editing.

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。

This skill should be used when the user asks about "mystery", "fair play", "clue", "red herring", "romance beats", "HEA", "thriller", "ticking clock", "horror", "dread", "MG", "YA", "middle grade", "young adult", "science fiction", "sci-fi", "fantasy", "quest", "chosen one", "historical fiction", "period voice", "anachronism", "comedy", "humour", "humor", "romcom", "farce", "satire", "running gag", "serial", "episodic", "web serial", "genre conventions", or wants genre-specific structural craft for a story project. NOT for a clue check as a revision pass (use revision-continuity).

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。

This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a plot arc", "story structure", "add a plot point", "story timeline", "track foreshadowing", "pacing", "sagging middle", "act structure", "story arc", "plot outline", "snowflake method", or wants to plan and manage the narrative structure of a story. It owns book-level pacing; NOT for the craft of scene outcomes or chapter hooks, which this skill only plans in the outline (use scene-craft), or a pacing check as a revision pass (use revision-continuity).

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。

This skill should be used when the user asks about "pantsing", "discovery write", "write without an outline", "discovery draft", "write into the dark", "story kernel", "reconcile a chapter", "dead end", "drafting sprint", "writing cadence", or wants to draft a story by discovery with retrospective bible reconciliation. NOT for outline-first drafting, or mysteries and other clue-dependent genres where setup must come before payoff (use chapter-writing), or a reverse outline of an existing linear draft, a subplot cut, or another revision pass on existing chapters (use revision-continuity).

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 an architecture-driven change to code that already exists: module boundaries, type responsibilities, layering, coupling, and the public surface a revision moves. Produces a buildable change plan that names the types, modules, and methods involved and records the surface delta each change makes. Use when the user wants to plan, scope, or sequence a restructure, extraction, split, consolidation, responsibility shift, or API revision of existing code, including "these responsibilities are wrong, plan the fix". Does not assess an area and stop at findings — use architectural-analysis. Does not specify new behavior — use plan-a-feature. Does not diagnose a bug — use investigate. Does not write the code — use refactor to restructure it or tdd to build it.

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。

Systematic step-by-step reasoning with revision and branching. Use for complex problems, multi-stage analysis, design planning, problem decomposition, or encountering unclear scope, alternative approaches needed, revision requirements.

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 task came back to QA after need_revision - what to re-run, what may carry over, and how to keep old passes from approving new code

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。

Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict with specific gaps.

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。

Select evidence-based study strategies matched to material type, learning goal, and student habits. Use when advising students on revision techniques, homework, or independent study approaches.

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。

Organizes an author’s response to peer review. Extracts every referee and editor point, tags severity and type, orders the revision by dependency, flags defensible pushbacks as questions, and builds a numbered comment → response → location letter whose substantive answers the author writes. Use when the user has referee reports, a revise-and-resubmit decision, or an editor’s letter and wants to plan the revision, draft the response letter, or check that every point was addressed. The reviewer-side twin is journal-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。

Audit one bounded Proto UI deployment or publication evidence slice against an exact revision and delivery surface. Use to verify revision identity, environment result, artifacts, and observable health. Do not deploy, promote, roll back, publish, release, or change environment protection.

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 and verify a vendor-neutral PCB/PCBA manufacturing release from one frozen design revision. Use when generating or auditing Gerber, drill, IPC-2581/ODB++, BOM, CPL/pick-and-place, assembly drawings, constraints, renders, DFM evidence, hashes, or release manifests, and when preventing mixed-revision fabrication or assembly uploads.

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。

Revise an already accepted article, essay, paper, statement, or manuscript under strict minimal-change constraints while still satisfying reviewer comments, supervisor feedback, or requested edits. Use when the user asks for minimal edits, smallest necessary changes, preserve the current voice, keep the existing style, avoid broad rewriting, or implement requested revisions without unnecessary polishing.

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。

Diagnose whether an LLM classifier's validation-gate failure is GOLD-BOUND before spending on prompt revision or model changes. Use when: (1) a scoring pipeline over-predicts a label (precision low, recall high) and a prompt clarification is proposed to tighten it, (2) a pilot/validation gate fails and the fix candidates are prompt edits, (3) inter-rater agreement on the weak label was already low (κ < ~0.6). Core check: if gold POSITIVES share the exact feature the revision would exclude, no prompt can pass a gold-scored gate — recall craters while precision barely moves. Also documents the verified surgical-pilot design (single-section diff, tune/holdout split, pre-registered gate, perturbation check on untouched sections).

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。

Gate resumption of any multi-day LLM batch-scoring campaign that calls an unpinned model alias (deepseek-chat, gpt-*-latest, gemini-*-preview, any provider alias without a pinned version). Use when: (1) resuming a paused or credit-exhausted scoring run days after its last chunk, (2) topping up credits to finish a campaign, (3) extending a cached scoring pipeline with new items. Prevents silently splicing two model versions or serving revisions into one measure. Verified 2026-07-16: for $0.30 caught a serving-revision drift WITHIN DeepSeek v4-flash (same alias, same family, litigation scores systematically shifted across a 2-day gap) before an $83 resume spend.

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。

Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict with specific gaps.

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。

Firmware development for the WeAct Studio RP2350A Core Board (RP2350A — dual Cortex-M33 @ 150 MHz, 520 KB SRAM, 4 MB or 16 MB QSPI flash) in both of its revisions, RP2350A_V10 and RP2350A_V20 — the 40-pin Pico-2-shaped header, 3-or-4-channel 12-bit ADC, PWM, PIO, USB-C CDC, the V1.0 LDO vs V2.0 buck-boost power wiring, and the PlatformIO + arduino-pico (earlephilhower) setup around them. Use when working on this board, a WeAct RP2350 core board of unknown revision, or any Raspberry Pi Pico 2 / RP2350A clone: project setup, platformio.ini, board = rpipico2 vs weact_rp2350b, telling V1.0 and V2.0 apart, pin mapping, LED and KEY pins, powering it from a battery, 4 MB vs 16 MB flash, erratum RP2350-E9 pull-down trouble, BOOT/RESET UF2 flashing, or debugging why something on the board does not work.

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。

범위 밖 선행 fix의 RED는 이슈 관찰 revision에서 재현

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。

Implement executable BDI reasoning with explicit negation, paraconsistent revision, trigger-based commitment updates, and abduction. Use for runtime agent semantics and conflicting desires. NOT for purely axiomatic modal logic, black-box planners, or classical logic without operational semantics.

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。

学术论文审稿意见回复信。输入是审稿人意见全文、reviewer comments、major/minor revision letter、或既有的 rebuttal 草稿时使用。功能包括：意见拆解 + ID 分配 + 行动映射（classify）、起草 point-by-point 回复（draft）、润色既有草稿（polish）、防御性与真实性审查（audit）、起草给编辑的 cover letter（cover）。覆盖期刊与会议 rebuttal、4 种困难场景（矛盾意见、不可能实验、缺关键证据、minor revision）。不适用于：正文段落写作（用 academic-writing）、图表生成（用 academic-figure）、参考文献格式（用 academic-citation）。

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。