「outcome」の検索結果

Produces a DRAFT 30-60-90 day onboarding plan for a new hire from the role, the team context and the systems list: phase outcomes traced to the role, activities with a named owner and due window, an access and equipment request table, learning items, manager checkpoints and the items the manager must confirm. Use when the user asks to "build an onboarding plan for our new hire", "draft the induction plan for this role", "write a first 90 days plan", "put together a new starter plan with owners", "create a ramp plan from this job description" or "plan the integration of an internal mover". Do not use for writing the job description itself, use job-description-drafter instead; for interview questions or a scorecard, use interview-scorecard-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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 one meeting transcript, recording recap or set of raw notes into concise DRAFT minutes returned in the chat as a single Markdown document: header metadata, attendance and apologies, agenda items each with a short neutral summary and outcome, numbered decisions with an owner, numbered action items with owner and due date, open questions, carried-over actions and the next-meeting line, every entry backed by a short verbatim source fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "write the minutes", "draft minutes from this transcript", "turn these notes into meeting minutes", "produce the minutes of meeting for today's call", "tidy my rough minutes into the standard format" or "prepare the minutes for circulation". Do not use for extracting action items, task lists or per-owner follow-up emails alone, use transcript-to-actions instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Drafts one anonymised DRAFT case study (situation, approach, outcome as evidenced, optional lessons) from engagement notes, status reports, closing reports, emails and metrics extracts the user supplies, with a fact trace to the notes, an evidence grade on every result, quotes only where the user supplied them with speaker role and permission, an anonymisation log and a confidentiality checklist that must be completed before publication. Use when the user asks to "write a case study from these notes", "turn this engagement into a customer story", "draft a success story for the website", "anonymise this project write-up" or "prepare a reference case for the proposal". Do not use for redacting identifiers from an existing document, use document-deidentification-pass instead; for checking whether a document's claims are substantiated, use claims-evidence-map. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reconstruct a daily or weekly worklog from observed activity and outcomes.

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 any open-source repository end to end and answer the core question — SHOULD YOU contribute to it? — with a GO / NO-GO / GO-IF verdict backed by evidence: snapshot, momentum, contribution landscape (PR acceptance rates, outside-contributor merge rates, first-timer outcomes), issue health, governance, community sentiment, and a final go/no-go recommendation. Use when the user asks 'should I contribute to X', wants a before-I-contribute due-diligence check on a project, asks whether a project accepts outside PRs, wants contribution-health numbers like PR merge rates or stale-PR counts, or asks for a deep dive on an open-source codebase's health and dynamics before investing time in 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。

How to read submitted JetFormBuilder form data from a custom action, transform it (including %macro% replacement of admin-typed templates), call an external HTTP API, write the response back into the form context for downstream actions to use, and dispatch JFB events based on the API outcome. Use when building a custom action that integrates with a third-party service (LLM call, webhook, CRM, payment processor, geolocation lookup) and needs the action to behave as a node in a data-flow graph rather than a one-shot leaf. Triggers on mentions of "jet_fb_context", "update_request", "has_field", "get_value", "wp_remote_post" with form data, "macro replacement", or "API call from action".

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 user asks to "run a launch retro / post-mortem", "compare launch results vs targets by channel", or "decide what to keep or kill for the next launch"; produces a structured D1/W1/M1 retrospective — a per-channel actual-vs-target table (UTM-attributed own analytics as the truth column, platform self-reported numbers as reference, every figure labeled Measured / User-provided / Estimated), a 5-Whys chain on the single largest miss, keep / kill / change decisions per channel, 3-5 actionable learnings for the next launch, and an outcome snapshot submitted to the launch registry. Not for return math (CPA / ROI) — use roi-calculator; not for the stakeholder-facing report writeup — use report-generator; not for a metric deep-dive — use performance-analyzer. 发布复盘/渠道归因/5-Whys/keep-kill

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 user asks to "log this launch", query a launch date/embargo, record a stage transition, or update submissions/outcomes; curates launch facts through the append-only launches event stream with optimistic revisions and derived dossier/calendar views. Not for RAMP scoring — use launch-readiness-auditor; not for planning tier/window — use launch-tier-planner. 发布台账/发布日历/阶段与禁运期记录

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 during planned rewrites and migrations with explicit phase boundaries. Converge on the target architecture; don't preserve smooth intermediate states with throwaway compatibility 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。

Control risky structural change by proving a refactor is necessary and that behaviour, contracts, data, security boundaries, and operational properties can be preserved through a staged migration. Use whenever the user wants to refactor, restructure, clean up, modernise, extract, migrate, rewrite, or re-architect existing code, or asks whether they should. Prefer this over starting the refactor. DO NOT REFACTOR is a first-class outcome. Part of the audit suite; inherits the shared constitution while its own job is proving necessity and behavioural preservation.

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。

Quietly reuse and improve verified coding lessons across agents. Use for a nontrivial debugging or implementation problem where an earlier solution could help, when a Blaze offer or receipt appears, or when the user asks to inspect, install, update, contribute to, or link Blaze. Check applicability, verify locally, and close the lookup with an honest outcome and contribution disposition without adding routine user-visible narration.

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。

Act as FriendlyBet's CEO and primary front door for every FriendlyBet request through automatic company preflight. Own end-to-end routing, planning, execution coordination, department orchestration, decision-rights enforcement, quality gates, board-style reporting, and escalation only for strategic, legal, brand, cost, risk, or taste decisions. Use by default in FriendlyBet threads, with full department planning for broad, ambiguous, strategic, cross-functional, or outcome-driven requests such as SEO, new features, multi-sport expansion, product direction, release execution, company operations, or agent coordination.

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。

XML-specified Android UI journey testing, interactive step execution, assertion verification, and JSON outcome reporting.

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 summarizing agent evaluations where autonomous, assisted, failed, timed-out, or invalid outcomes must remain distinct and comparable.

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。

Triage acc's open promises and close them with honest real-world verdicts via acc_act(runtime="outcome").

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 before starting any significant build or before shipping: problem-framing pre-flight, one-way/two-way door classification, ADR-lite decision logging, and post-ship outcome loop. Complements godmode-shipping (technical gate) and bdbresilience (error recovery).

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。

Stops "just one more" small tweaks that add scope without changing the outcome. Use when named (just-stop), or when about to implement extra polish, cleanup, or drive-by fixes beyond the stated goal.

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。

Run a project's GitHub Issues through Orca Workers from a coordinating session in the project's Hub folder. The Orchestrator reads Issues, claims one, dispatches an Orca Task into a fresh worktree of the target repo, supervises until worker_done, and writes the outcome back to the Issue — it never edits code itself. Use when the user says "take

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。

Disciplined diagnosis workflow for hard, intermittent, or multi-component bugs and performance regressions: inspect logs and existing evidence, build a feedback loop, test falsifiable hypotheses, instrument gaps, and verify the outcome. Use when the root cause is unclear, reproduction is unreliable, several causes or components are plausible, or performance has regressed. Do NOT use for obvious single-cause errors, straightforward configuration or syntax fixes, planned feature work, or broad architecture review. Diagnosis-only requests stop after reporting the root cause and evidence; apply a fix only when the user requested one.

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。

End-to-end observational epidemiology analysis — from research question (PECO Population/Exposure/Comparator/Outcome) to publication-ready statistical report. Covers cohort/case-control/cross-sectional design, regression with confounders, propensity scoring, sensitivity analysis. Writes Python code for every step. Use for epidemiology study analysis, NHANES/UK-Biobank-style analyses.

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。

Mendelian randomization (MR) causal inference — does an exposure, risk factor, or biomarker CAUSALLY affect a disease/outcome, using genetic variants as instrumental variables (IEU OpenGWAS / EpiGraphDB MR-EvE). Use this whenever the user asks if X causes Y, whether an observational association is actually causal or just correlation, if a biomarker/trait is a causal risk factor, wants to triangulate epidemiology against genetic evidence, or mentions Mendelian randomization, instrumental-variable analysis, two-sample MR, or genetic causal evidence — even if they never say "MR" (e.g. "is LDL cholesterol actually causal for heart disease?", "does BMI cause type 2 diabetes or just correlate?", "is CRP a causal driver of stroke?"). Covers trait-label resolution, MR effect direction/magnitude, instrument quality (MOE score), method agreement (IVW vs MR-Egger vs weighted median), bidirectional MR for reverse causation, and distinguishing causation from genetic correlation. Not for plain GWAS association lookups (use the GWAS skills) or fitting your own instruments from raw summary statistics.

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。

Performs logistic regression for clinical trial outcomes (binary, ordinal, multinomial) with marginal-vs-conditional estimand reporting per FDA 2023 covariate adjustment guidance, g-computation/standardisation for marginal effects, modified Poisson for RR, Brant test for proportional odds, Firth penalty for separation, and Hauck-Donner detection. Use when modeling binary or ordinal endpoints in confirmatory or exploratory clinical trials.

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 diagnostic and prognostic classifiers on omics feature matrices with regularized logistic regression, random forest, and gradient-boosted trees, handling the p>>n regime, batch shortcut learning, class imbalance, and probability calibration. Use when building a classifier from expression, methylation, or variant data, choosing an algorithm for high-dimensional small-n data, or diagnosing a suspiciously perfect AUC. For unbiased evaluation see machine-learning/model-validation; for feature selection see machine-learning/biomarker-discovery; for time-to-event outcomes see machine-learning/survival-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。

Trace drug mechanism of action — primary target → downstream signaling → pathway perturbation → tissue/organ effect → clinical outcome. Uses DrugBank, ChEMBL, KEGG, Reactome, STRING. Use for understanding how a drug works, identifying off-target effects, mechanism-based combination therapy design, and writing mechanism sections of reports.

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。