「side-by-side」の検索結果

Activate this skill when BenchmarkDotNet (BDN) is involved in the task — creating, running, configuring, or reviewing BDN benchmarks. Also activate when microbenchmarking .NET code would be useful and BenchmarkDotNet is the likely tool. Consider activating when answering a .NET performance question requires measurement and BenchmarkDotNet may be needed. Covers microbenchmark design, BDN configuration and project setup, how to run BDN microbenchmarks efficiently and effectively, and using BDN for side-by-side performance comparisons. Do NOT use for profiling/tracing .NET code (dotnet-trace, PerfView), production telemetry, or load/stress testing (Crank, k6).

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。

Compares two or more dotnet new templates side by side to help users choose between them based on parameters, feature support, frameworks, and classifications. USE FOR: deciding between similar templates (webapi vs webapp, blazor vs blazorwasm, console vs worker), producing a side-by-side comparison of parameters and feature support, understanding how templates differ before creating a project. DO NOT USE FOR: creating a project from a template (use template-instantiation), authoring or validating custom templates (use template-authoring and template-validation), general single-template discovery (use template-discovery).

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。

Helps find, inspect, and compare (at a high level) .NET project templates. Resolves natural-language project descriptions to ranked template matches with pre-filled parameters. USE FOR: finding the right dotnet new template for a task, inspecting a template's parameters and constraints, understanding what a template produces before creating a project, resolving intent like "web API with auth" to concrete template + parameters. DO NOT USE FOR: actually creating projects (use template-instantiation), authoring custom templates (use template-authoring), producing a detailed side-by-side comparison (use template-comparison), choosing cross-parameter defaults during creation (use template-smart-defaults), MSBuild or build issues (use dotnet-msbuild plugin), NuGet package management unrelated to template packages.

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。

Creates .NET projects from templates with validated parameters, smart defaults, Central Package Management adaptation, and latest NuGet version resolution. USE FOR: creating new dotnet projects, scaffolding solutions with multiple projects, installing or uninstalling template packages, creating projects that respect Directory.Packages.props (CPM), composing multi-project solutions (API + tests + library), getting latest NuGet package versions in newly created projects. DO NOT USE FOR: finding templates (use template-discovery), producing a detailed side-by-side comparison of templates (use template-comparison), authoring custom templates (use template-authoring), deciding cross-parameter defaults such as which framework to pair with native AOT or whether to keep HTTPS when auth is enabled (use template-smart-defaults), modifying existing projects or adding NuGet packages to existing projects.

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 you need to verify Java performance optimizations by comparing profiling results before and after refactoring — including baseline validation, post-refactoring report generation, quantitative before/after metrics comparison, side-by-side flamegraph analysis, regression detection, or creating profiling-comparison-analysis and profiling-final-results documentation. This should trigger for requests such as Verify performance fix; Verify the performance; Verify the memory; Verify the threading; Compare before and after profiling results; Check for performance regressions after refactoring. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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。

Analyze PMCC (Poor Man's Covered Call / diagonal spread) positions from IB portfolio. For each diagonal spread, reports short leg risk (delta, IV, assignment probability), daily P&L projections, top-3 roll candidates, and a side-by-side comparison table. Requires TWS or IB Gateway running locally.

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 EPD products on normalized GWP and other impacts while checking declared units, system boundaries, and LEED eligibility. Use for side-by-side EPD comparison.

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。

Side-by-side stat comparisons with context. Adjust for era, pace of play, league differences. Advanced metrics explained in plain English.

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。

Pulls financial statement numbers for US public companies straight from SEC EDGAR's free official XBRL APIs (companyfacts, companyconcept, frames, submissions) into a cited table. Every value carries its accession number, form, fiscal period, filed date, XBRL tag and a link to the filing, and the tool handles fiscal-year ends, quarterly vs YTD vs TTM, derived Q4, restatements and units. Use this whenever the user wants 10-K numbers or 10-Q numbers, says "pull financials for", asks for public company revenue, net income, EPS, cash, debt or capex, wants comps or a competitor side-by-side, a credit check, prospect research, or model inputs, or mentions SEC filings or EDGAR, even if they never say XBRL. Free and primary-source, no paid data terminal needed. Do not use it for private companies, stock prices or valuation multiples.

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 you need to compare features and options side-by-side.

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。

Composite any two HTML screens into a locked photo plate of hands holding an open foldable phone — a 1448×1086 still with two blank 495×849 / 498×849 screen slots (left and right) — to make side-by-side meme and comparison videos: TikTok vs Reels, ChatGPT vs Claude, "me vs my friend", before/after, two apps racing. Trigger on: "foldable phone meme", "put X on the left screen and Y on the right", "two-screen comparison video", "the dual-screen phone meme", or any request that names two apps/feeds/chats to show at once. The plate, geometry, and camera are finished — the agent only authors what plays INSIDE the two screens and renders.

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。

Head-to-head SEO comparison of two domains powered by the DataForSEO API. Side-by-side metrics across keywords, traffic, backlinks, referring domains, and shared keyword overlap with a verdict on which domain has the stronger SEO position.

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。

MEMO-ONLY prior-work overlap advisory: surfaces the two ADVISORY taxonomy signals neither a tool nor a model can decide from the paper alone — ADV-TRIVIAL-COMBINATION (standard A+B+C / 缝合 stapling) and ADV-DUPLICATE-PUBLICATION (repackaged / duplicate submission). The executor RETRIEVES candidate prior work (DBLP fuzzy-title + boolean · WebSearch · WebFetch) from the paper's own title + contribution spans in the evidence ledger; TWO fresh cross-model codex reviewers (one per axis) LAY OUT the overlap side-by-side against each anchored contribution claim. It NEVER rules 'trivial' or 'duplicate' (that is a human judgment) and absence of a match is NOT evidence of originality. Emits novelty-duplication-advisory.memo.md + an info-only findings mirror; carries NO verdict weight — tools/adjudicate_findings.py lists it in ZERO_WEIGHT_SKILLS and caps it at info. Detect-only. Adapted from ARIS novelty-check, reframed from 'is MY idea novel' to 'here is the overlap a reviewer should weigh'. Triggers: "novelty advisory", "duplication check", "prior-work overlap", "is this stapling", "缝合", "查重", "重复发表", "duplicate 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。

Composes single-file HTML artifacts (PR review writeups, status reports, incident postmortems, slide decks, design systems, prototypes, flowcharts, module maps, feature explainers, kanban boards, prompt tuners) from a small JSON spec instead of hand-written HTML/CSS/JS. Use when the user asks to "compare options side-by-side", requests an HTML version of a report or review or deck, asks for a flowchart, status update, postmortem, design system reference, interactive prototype, custom editor — or explicitly says "HTML artifact", "single HTML file", "self-contained HTML". Skip for ad-hoc HTML snippets (forms, emails, embedded widgets) where there's no template fit.

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 multiple job offers side-by-side with total compensation analysis

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。

Side-by-side comparison of two financial scenarios (buy vs rent, new job vs stay, payoff house vs invest, Roth vs Traditional, lease vs buy car, etc). Projects each scenario over 10 years, compares total cost, opportunity cost, risk profile, and produces a structured recommendation. Output saved as FINANCE-COMPARE.md.

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 verifying information (fact, number, quote, event, statement) against authoritative primary sources, or cross-checking a number via one-level metric decomposition (Z = P × Q). Triggers: "verify X", "is this true", "find the original source", "where is this number from", "two sources disagree", "is it true X never did Y". Covers five scenarios: (1) basic truthfulness check, (2) completeness / out-of-context quoting, (3) one-level reasoning verification, (4) negative-statement handling, (5) multi-source conflict side-by-side output. Dig into whitelisted primary sources only (user-supplied files, official websites & databases, authoritative industry sources); cited reports / charts / datasets must be downloaded and read locally to count as verified — if download is blocked, hand the link to the user. If nothing can be found, plainly state "cannot verify" rather than guessing, patching, or citing secondary paraphrases. Always reply in the user's question language.

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。

Head-to-Head Candidate Comparison — two candidates side-by-side across skills, experience, culture fit, salary expectations, references, hire-or-no-hire recommendation

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。

See the difference between Chat and Cowork with a live side-by-side comparison for understanding why Cowork is built differently. Use when evaluating AI tools, for comparing chat versus agent capabilities, during an AI tool decision, when switching from ChatGPT or Claude Chat, or when the user says "what is different about cowork", "cowork vs chat", "why not just use chatgpt", "show me the difference", "compare chat and cowork", or "why should I use cowork instead of chat".

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。

Visual design verification loop for matching a goal PNG to a live render. Use when the user shares a design mock / goal image and asks to match the UI to it, asks to "iterate on this design" or "match this 1:1", or calls out visual drift in a previous UI iteration. Provides histogram color sampling, shape inspection (radius/border/shadow/bg-mode/fill-vs-context), computed-style checking on the live render, snap, and side-by-side diff. After every UI change the assistant MUST snap the live render and Read the snap with the Read tool before reporting the change done — skipping that is the

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。

Full design improvement pipeline — syncs your app to Google Stitch, generates alternatives, presents side-by-side comparison, and adopts cherry-picked improvements. Triggers: 'stitch pipeline', 'improve my design with stitch', 'make my app look better', 'stitch redesign everything'.

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。

Time-travel debugging for DAG executions. Inspect agent state at any node, replay decisions with modified inputs, compare execution traces side-by-side, and identify where reasoning diverged. Inspired by LangGraph Studio's state-editing model and Temporal's event history. Activate on "debug DAG", "replay execution", "time travel debug", "inspect node state", "what went wrong at step", "compare runs", "execution diff". NOT for live monitoring (use dag-runtime + websocket-streaming), failure analysis (use dag-ops), or general code debugging.

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。

The crouton-conformance gate — the SECOND acceptance axis of graduation (the first is the experience side-by-side, /graduate stage C1). Checks a graduated app is a REAL crouton app — CLI-scaffolded, real collections, consumes the correct packages without reinventing them — by composing the existing probes (frontend-review, a11y, e2e-smoke, typecheck) plus crouton-structural checks, then renders a required, signed-off checklist on the graduation PR. Use at /graduate stage C2, or when asked "is this app crouton-native", "run the conformance gate", "check graduation conformance".

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。

Compose a comparison newsletter from Ahmad's OpenMark saves — A vs B vs C, side-by-side, table-driven. Use when Ahmad wants to compare tools, models, frameworks, approaches, or platforms across his saves. Trigger phrases include "compare", "X vs Y", "head to head", "which should I use", "differences between", "trade-offs between", "/newsletter-comparison". Output centers a markdown table with consistent columns, supports it with short prose blocks, ends with a clear recommendation.

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。