「trade-off」の検索結果

Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system 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。

Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system 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。

Create or evaluate an architecture decision record (ADR). Use when choosing between technologies (e.g., Kafka vs SQS), documenting a design decision with trade-offs and consequences, reviewing a system design proposal, or designing a new component from requirements and constraints.

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 adding, retiring, or auditing feature flags. Triggers on "add a flag", "ship behind a flag", "rollout plan", "kill switch", "stale flags", "flag debt", "LaunchDarkly", "GrowthBook", "Statsig", "Unleash", "Flipt", or any progressive-delivery question. Ships flag debt scanner, rollout planner, and kill-switch auditor (all stdlib Python), 4 references on flag taxonomy + provider trade-offs + rollout strategies + lifecycle, plus a /flag-cleanup slash command.

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 or revisiting product pricing — selecting a pricing model (subscription seat-based, usage-based, value-based, freemium, or hybrid), running Van Westendorp Price Sensitivity Meter analysis on WTP survey data, or designing Good/Better/Best packaging tiers. Recommends a model and a price range with trade-offs, never a single number. For Commercial leads, Product Marketing, and CMOs at the pricing-design moment — not deal-by-deal discounting, not brand 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。

Create a comprehensive product strategy using the 9-section Product Strategy Canvas — vision, segments, costs, value propositions, trade-offs, metrics, growth, capabilities, and defensibility. Use when building a product strategy, creating a strategic plan, or defining product direction.

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。

Google platform decision and setup guidance, loaded on demand from Google's skill catalog. Use when a developer is choosing or setting up part of their stack, such as where to run a service, a database, storage, messaging, authentication, analytics, ads, or AI model serving, and a Google product is a reasonable candidate - whether or not a vendor is named - or when a request names a Google product or API. Brings in the matching Google skill so the answer can weigh Google options, their trade-offs, and when they are not the right fit. Skip when the stack is already settled on another provider and no Google product is named, or the task involves no platform choice.

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 new high-level system architecture, reviewing existing designs, or making architectural decisions. Invoke to create architecture diagrams, write Architecture Decision Records (ADRs), evaluate technology trade-offs, design component interactions, and plan for scalability. Use for system design, architecture review, microservices structuring, ADR authoring, scalability planning, and infrastructure pattern selection — distinct from code-level design patterns or database-only design tasks.

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。

Builds and runs code under AddressSanitizer to catch buffer overflows, use-after-free, and other memory errors during fuzzing or tests. Covers -fsanitize=address builds, ASAN_OPTIONS, reading the crash report, LeakSanitizer, and the overhead and platform trade-offs. Use when fuzzing C/C++ or Rust that has unsafe blocks or FFI, when debugging a memory corruption crash, or when reading an ASan stack trace.

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 developers through capturing diagnostic artifacts to diagnose production .NET performance issues. Use when the user needs help choosing diagnostic tools, collecting performance data, or understanding tool trade-offs across different environments (Windows/Linux, .NET Framework/modern .NET, container/non-container).

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。

Present options with trade-offs for informed decision-making — use when choosing between 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。

Use this skill to write the PR description (PR body) for any pull request opened against microsoft/apm. Produces one self-sufficient GitHub-Flavored Markdown artifact: TL;DR, Problem (WHY), Approach (WHAT), Implementation (HOW), 1-3 validated mermaid diagrams, explicit trade-offs, validation evidence, and a How-to-test section -- with every WHY-claim backed by a verbatim quote from PROSE or Agent Skills. Activate when the user asks to "write a PR description", "draft a PR body", "open a PR", "fill in the PR template", or any equivalent.

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 the user is measuring GPU-kernel-initiated RDMA WRITE latency through doca-gpunetio — building and running the `gpunetio_ib_write_lat` client + server pair under `doca/tools/gpunetio_ib_write_lat/`, checking GPU-NIC pairing, reading the half-iter / full-iter / CUDA-side usec columns, characterizing median / p99 / jitter for a real-time control loop, picking GPUNetIO vs GPI vs CPU-initiated `perftest`, or weighing the latency-vs-batching trade-off. Trigger even without 'GPUNetIO' or 'ib_write_lat': 'GPU kernel RDMA latency benchmark', 'how fast can a CUDA kernel post a WRITE', 'p99 RDMA latency on H100 + ConnectX', 'kernel-launched WR tail latency', or 'compare GPU-init vs CPU-init perftest'. Route elsewhere for bandwidth runs (doca-gpunetio-ib-write-bw), the GPI surface (doca-gpi), library debugging (doca-gpunetio), or DOCA install.

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。

Turns an answer into a one-page visual HTML explainer: the model writes a short Markdown draft and the bundled CLI builds one page. Use it proactively and liberally, without being asked, whenever a page would help the reader more than plain text, even if plain text would also work: any explanation of how something works or how parts relate (flow, request path, architecture, code or folder structure, state machine, lifecycle, history); any comparison, trade-off or decision with pros and cons; any diagnosis, review or investigation, especially with several causes or findings to rank; any answer with a table, a numbered or ranked list, steps, branches or several sections; or when the user says "I don't get it / draw it / explain visually / 讲讲原理 / 没看懂 / 画个图". When in doubt, use it: a page is quick and cheap to make. Also for explainer videos ("make a video", "做个视频") and for changing its settings. Skip only for small talk, a trivial one-line answer, or when the user asks for plain text.

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。

Guidance for choosing the right protein binder design tool. Use this skill when: (1) Deciding between BoltzGen, BindCraft, or RFdiffusion, (2) Planning a binder design campaign, (3) Understanding trade-offs between different approaches, (4) Selecting tools for specific target types. For specific tool parameters, use the individual tool skills (boltzgen, bindcraft, rfdiffusion, 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。

Define actionable principles that resolve trade-offs when the team disagrees. Use when the same decisions keep getting relitigated. For a single project's framing, use `design-brief`.

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 uncontested market space using value innovation instead of competing head-to-head. Use when the user mentions "blue ocean", "red ocean", "strategy canvas", "ERRC framework", "value innovation", "non-customers", "buyer utility map", "the market is too crowded", "how do we stand out", or "escape the price war". Also trigger when exploring a new market category, or finding underserved or non-customers. Covers the Four Actions Framework, Six Paths, buyer utility map, and value-cost trade-offs. For real strategy formulation and bad-strategy detection, see good-strategy-bad-strategy. For tech adoption strategy, see crossing-the-chasm. For product positioning, see obviously-awesome.

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。

When the user wants to design or optimize the funnel that takes web visitors into installing and onboarding the app — including smart app banners, web-to-app deep links, deferred deep links, web onboarding (Stripe-paid web flow before app install), QR codes, "open in app" CTAs, and the trade-off between paying on web vs in-app. Use when the user mentions "web to app", "smart app banner", "Stripe before app", "web paywall before install", "Branch web SDK", "web funnel for app", "AppsFlyer OneLink web", "Universal Links", "App Links", "QR code to app", "open in app", "deferred deep link from web", or "should I sell on web first then push to app". For pure in-app onboarding, see onboarding-optimization. For deep link infra, see attribution-setup.

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。

When the user wants to choose, change, or evaluate their App Store / Google Play category and subcategory — including primary vs secondary category trade-offs, chart-rank competitive analysis, category-driven discoverability, and how category choice affects featuring eligibility. Use when the user mentions "which category", "App Store category", "primary category", "secondary category", "change my category", "Health & Fitness vs Lifestyle", "Productivity vs Utilities", "rank higher in a smaller category", "category chart", "subcategory", "Play Store category", or "should I switch categories". For full ASO health beyond category, see aso-audit. For competitor analysis within the chosen category, see competitor-analysis. For chart movements within categories, see market-movers.

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 system structure and makes architectural decisions defensible — boundaries, coupling, trade-offs, and recording why. Use this to design a new system or major component, choose between architectural options, review an existing design, decide where a boundary belongs, or document an architectural decision so it survives the people who made 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。

Multi-objective optimization with Pareto frontiers. Use when optimizing multiple conflicting objectives simultaneously, finding trade-off solutions, or computing Pareto-optimal points.

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。

Research-first development methodology that investigates existing solutions, brainstorms alternatives, and evaluates trade-offs before any implementation begins.

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 DevKit · Design phase guidance for reviewing feature design against requirements. Use when the user wants to validate architecture, review design docs, resolve design trade-offs, or run dev-lifecycle phase 3.

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 the creation of technical design documents before writing code, producing architecture diagrams, data models, API interface definitions, implementation plans, and multi-option trade-off analyses. Use when the user asks to plan a feature, architect a system, design an API, explore implementation approaches, or requests a technical design or spec before coding — especially for complex features involving multiple components, ambiguous requirements, or significant architectural changes.

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。