「tradeoffs」の検索結果

Use for 'why does X work this way', 'why we picked Y', design rationale, regressions, postmortems, or data-backed thresholds. Discovers available MCPs and queries each evidence category (source control, issue tracker, long-form docs, real-time chat, infrastructure observability, error tracking, product analytics warehouse) in parallel, then returns a cited read on decisions and tradeoffs. Use how for runtime behavior.

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 when product, UX, or feature-scope tradeoffs come up. Choose user delight over implementation convenience; ship fewer polished features over more rough ones.

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 an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) for any technical decision. Use when asked to document a technical decision, write an ADR, record an architecture choice, or capture why a technology or approach was selected. Produces a structured ADR with context, decision, consequences, and tradeoffs.

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。

Help users navigate complex product decisions by weighing competing priorities and calculating long-term value. This skill covers build-vs-buy logic, technical debt evaluation, and communicating tradeoffs to senior leadership.

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。

Evaluate system boundaries and architectural tradeoffs. Use for architecture decisions, design reviews, and ADRs.

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。

Running experiments out of the data warehouse instead of via dedicated experiment platforms. SQL-based assignment, exposure logging discipline, metric definitions in dbt models, statistical analysis in SQL or Python, variance reduction with CUPED, sequential testing, and the operational tradeoffs vs platforms like Statsig and Optimizely. Triggers on warehouse-native experimentation, run experiments in BigQuery, run experiments in Snowflake, dbt experiments, SQL t-test, CUPED variance reduction, exposure log, sample ratio mismatch, sequential testing, mSPRT, doubly robust estimation, build vs buy experimentation. Also triggers when the team is choosing between platform and warehouse, building warehouse-native experiment infrastructure, auditing one, or running an experiment with a custom metric the platform cannot handle.

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。

Expert guidance for designing, assessing, and optimizing Azure workloads using Azure Well Architected. Covers design review checklists, recommendations, design principles, tradeoffs, service guides, workload patterns, and assessment questions. Use when designing AI, HPC, SaaS, AVD/AVS workloads, choosing regions/AZs, or configuring core Azure services, and other Azure Well Architected related development 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。

Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.

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 a codebase for high-leverage architectural improvements and explain evidence, tradeoffs, and next steps. Use explicitly for architecture audits or deep-module refactoring opportunities.

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。

Identify negotiable contract terms and draft options with commercial tradeoffs and legal review questions. Use for this Bot Generator Bot template; creates drafts or simulations within its declared scope.

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 working with this machine's local LLM setup (LM Studio + mlx-dspark) -- checking status, changing context window, diagnosing a reasoning hang or dead request, understanding RAM/speed tradeoffs, or wiring a new script to the local inference 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。

Designs target system boundaries, contracts and tradeoffs from requirements; does not plan tasks or implement.

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 Java design, refactoring, or implementation tradeoffs should be evaluated with Kent Beck's simple design rules, including passes the tests, reveals intention, has no duplication, and has the fewest elements. This should trigger for requests such as Apply simple design rules; Review this design with Beck's rules; Choose between these refactoring options; Keep this Java design simple. 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。

Decision SOP for serving LLMs with vLLM. Covers PagedAttention mental model, quantization/parallelism/batching tradeoffs, OOM triage, and when NOT to use vLLM. Activates when a coder-agent is choosing or tuning an inference engine, debugging vLLM throughput/latency/OOM, or comparing vLLM against TGI/SGLang/TensorRT-LLM/llama.cpp.

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。

Adds and tunes a reranker stage for RAG using the retrieve-wide, rerank-narrow pattern. Use when relevant documents appear in the initial top-N but are buried by noise, top-1 precision or MRR is low despite adequate recall, or too many marginal chunks consume context. Covers cross-encoder, API, and local rerankers; N-to-k selection; and latency/cost tradeoffs. Do not use when retrieval recall itself is failing.

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。

Compress construction schedules using crashing and fast-tracking techniques. Analyze cost-time tradeoffs and find optimal acceleration strategies.

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。

Contract for the project decision journal (tradeoffs and lessons-learned logs). Use when recording a decision, tradeoff, or lesson, or building a consumer hook.

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 and advise on the best way to approach a software project, including architecture, tech stack, implementation strategy, pricing/operating-cost tradeoffs, benchmark research, and comparisons with similar real-world projects. Use before building, mid-build, or after completion when the user asks for project strategy, optimal approach, research comparables, similar projects, stack selection, vendor/service choice, repo analysis, architecture critique, implementation feedback, or a prioritized improvement plan. Avoid for narrow single-bug debugging or isolated file edits unless the user asks for broader project 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。

Think and work like an expert Cognitive Scientist. Use when a task calls for Cognitive Scientist judgment. Reasons from Marr's levels of analysis, latent processes behind RT and accuracy, and strong inference through PsychoPy paradigms, signal-detection d-prime/criterion, sequential-sampling and ACT-R models, and crossed mixed-effects designs while treating speed-accuracy tradeoffs, criterion shifts, item confounds, and underpowered WEIRD samples as first-class failure modes.

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 evaluate low-latency spoken, multimodal, and translation experiences with Google Gemini Live API and Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform Live API. Use when a media-production or voice-agent workflow needs real-time audio input/output, barge-in, voice configuration, live transcription, live translation, tool/function calling during a spoken session, WebSocket session design, latency QA, quotas/cost review, or Google/Vertex data-governance tradeoffs.

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。

Protocol for handling ambiguous decisions and missing/conflicting knowledge during code generation, design, and review. Ensures AI surfaces genuine judgment calls with structured options and stops on hallucination risk instead of silently assuming. Use when a decision has multiple valid approaches, when facts are missing or contradictory, when the user asks 'what should we do here?', 'is this a judgment call?', 'should I ask about this?', 'am I guessing here?', 'what are the tradeoffs?', or when deciding between two reasonable architectural or design options. Also composed by molecules to define how judgment calls and clarification requests are surfaced and resolved.

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。

PM skill for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, and Windsurf. Diagnoses SaaS metrics, critiques PRDs, plans roadmaps, runs discovery, coaches PM career transitions, pressure-tests AI product decisions, and designs PLG growth strategies. Seven knowledge domains, 12 templates, 40+ frameworks, and an opinionated interaction style that labels assumptions and names tradeoffs.

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 "technical decision", "what to use", "A vs B", "comparison analysis", "library selection", "architecture decision", "which one to use", "tradeoffs", "tech selection", "implementation approach", or needs deep analysis for technical decisions. Provides systematic multi-source research and synthesized recommendations.

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 when product, UX, or feature-scope tradeoffs come up. Choose user delight over implementation convenience; ship fewer polished features over more rough ones.

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。