「claim」の検索結果

Run a fast 2-agent pre-submission check for an economics paper — focuses on contribution, identification, and causal overclaiming. Completes in ~1 minute.

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。

Thoroughly verify all code, tables, figures, modeling decisions, and quantitative claims in an academic paper against its source R scripts and output files. Use this skill whenever you need to audit, replicate, or verify an academic research paper - including cross-checking LaTeX tables against R output, validating econometric modeling choices, ensuring sample sizes are consistent, building a verification manifest, and running automated replication tests. Trigger this skill for any mention of: paper verification, replication check, table audit, code-paper consistency, reproducing results, verifying estimates, checking coefficients, or any variant of "does the paper match the 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。

Causal inference framework for answering "does X cause Y?" beyond correlation. DoWhy (Microsoft Research) provides the identify-estimate-refute loop: define a causal graph (DAG), identify the causal effect using backdoor/frontdoor/instrumental variable criteria, estimate treatment effects with multiple estimators, and validate results with automated refutation tests. Use when: distinguishing causation from correlation, estimating treatment effects (ATE, ATT, CATE), designing and analyzing A/B tests with confounders, using instrumental variables, performing counterfactual reasoning ("what would have happened if..."), validating causal claims with sensitivity analysis, working with observational data where randomization is impossible, or any analysis where the question is "what is the CAUSAL effect of X on Y" rather than just "how do X and Y relate?"

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 research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific claims.

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。

Reviews whether a design is SOUND — solving the right problem, derived from its stated goals and constraints — and emits ranked, evidence-backed findings, not edits. Read when asked to 'review this design', 'is this design sound', 'pressure-test this proposal', 'do a design review', 'does this solve the right problem', 'poke holes in this spec', 'should we build this', or to critique a proposal / spec / ADR / architecture or product decision. Do NOT read when the user wants to AUTHOR one of these — routing a new proposal is frame-a-proposal, a spec is write-a-spec, a decision record is record-a-decision, a postmortem is write-a-postmortem. Do NOT read for code review of a diff, or to fact-check individual claims (that is a correctness pass, a different job).

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。

Investigate a topic against preserved sources and write a draft-status research article under `research/` in a Knowledge Base project (the `knowledge-base` starter pack). Read when asked to research a topic, compare options, synthesize sources, gather evidence, or extend an existing research doc. Carries the full procedure: scan existing coverage, agree a research rubric, capture every source verbatim before analyzing, write the article incrementally so a crash never loses work, cite every claim, and link it back into the graph. Does not promote findings to canonical knowledge — that is the sibling `consolidate-notes` skill, after a decision lands.

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。

Track how AI assistants describe your brand over time and catch wrong, outdated, or damaging claims. Claude builds your monitoring prompt set, compares runs week over week, and drafts the correction plan when answers drift. Platform: AI visibility.

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 post or patch ONE GitHub comment for a microsoft/apm autopilot run. It owns public vs debug body assembly and the AI disclaimer footer. Never labels, assigns, requests reviewers, or merges. Autopilot skills that write comments must load this skill and must not call gh comment APIs themselves.

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 to run a holistic regrounding pass on the entire microsoft/apm documentation corpus against current source code, page-by-page, and emit surgical fixes for stale claims. Activate when the maintainer wants a WHOLE-CORPUS audit (not per-PR review) -- typical triggers include "audit the docs", "reground the corpus", "check every page against code", "pre-release docs sweep", "the docs have drifted everywhere", or "we just reshaped the TOC, find dead links". Wave-batched and S7-verified; scales to the full ~112-page corpus in ~10 minutes wall-time. This is a SIBLING to docs-sync, not a replacement: docs-sync is per-PR (triggered by a diff); this skill is per-corpus (triggered by a maintainer ask). They share agent personas, schemas, and the docs index, but their triggers MUST NOT collide. Does NOT auto-merge, does NOT push without maintainer review, and does NOT replace per-PR drift detection.

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 scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-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。

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

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。

Retrieve authoritative OpenAI API and platform documentation when an integration or claim needs current external evidence.

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。

Investigate GitHub security incidents using tamper-proof GitHub Archive data via BigQuery. Use when verifying repository activity claims, recovering deleted PRs/branches/tags/repos, attributing actions to actors, or reconstructing attack timelines. Provides immutable forensic evidence of all public GitHub events since 2011.

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。

Runs maximum-saturation research with a cooperating team, claim-graph gating, and a cited, QA'd deliverable. Use when the user explicitly asks for research or a deep investigation, including any 'ulw' research wording.

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。

Separate reported claims from impact inferences, with related assets and next checkpoints. Use when the user asks to news impact with AlphaGBM. Use the bundled Python runner; never silently replace real results with demos.

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 scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-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。

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

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 wants to analyze active ads from Meta/Facebook, Google, or LinkedIn ad libraries; tear down a competitor's messaging; extract hooks, offers, CTAs, video transcripts, landing page claims, and test ideas from public ads.

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 wants to summarize, analyze, or repurpose transcripts from TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Rumble, or Reddit video posts. Extracts hooks, claims, quotes, content atoms, themes, and reusable scripts.

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。

精读一本书或一篇文章：提取核心观点、论证结构与关键论据。当用户要求「精读/分析这篇文章」「提取核心观点」「梳理论证逻辑」「做知识地图」「用费曼读书法读书」时使用本技能。五种模式：quick 快速要点 / deep 深度精读 / map 知识地图 / feynman 费曼读书法 / book 全书精读。Deep-reading assistant for books and articles: extract core claims, arguments and evidence.

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。

Cross-platform, hardware-adaptive system optimizer. Auto-detects macOS / Linux / WSL / Windows (MINGW/Cygwin/MSYS2) and CPU/RAM/disk/GPU profile, then picks the right cleanup strategy. Scans reclaimable disk space, memory pressure, runaway processes, startup bloat, network issues. CleanMyMac built into Claude 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。

Verify that a watermark-removal or "humanizer" step actually removed a statistical text watermark, by measuring a sample whose key the user holds. Use after any tool, script or service claims to have cleaned a text, or when the user asks whether such a tool works, which one to trust, or how to test one. Reports a detector score against fixed thresholds plus what the run cost in meaning, facts, verbatim overlap and length. This skill only measures and never removes a mark.

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。

Turn any codebase into evidence-grounded Markdown docs plus a machine-readable index.json. Every claim cites its source; never invents deployment steps.

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。