「compare」の検索結果

Evaluate, configure, and migrate workloads to AWS Lambda Managed Instances (LMI). Triggers on: Lambda Managed Instances, LMI, capacity provider, multi-concurrency Lambda, dedicated instance Lambda, EC2-backed Lambda, cold start elimination, Graviton Lambda, instance type for Lambda, scheduled scaling for LMI, Lambda cost optimization with Reserved Instances or Savings Plans. Also trigger when users describe high-volume predictable workloads seeking cost savings, want to scale LMI capacity on a schedule, or compare Lambda vs EC2 for steady-state traffic. For standard Lambda without LMI, use the aws-lambda skill instead.

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 and compare technology stacks with TCO analysis, security assessment, and ecosystem health scoring. Use when comparing frameworks, calculating total cost of ownership, assessing migration paths, or analyzing ecosystem viability.

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 "design cloud architecture", "set up Terraform infrastructure", "optimize cloud costs", "plan disaster recovery", "configure multi-region failover", "audit IAM policies", "migrate to cloud", "set up VPC networking", "compare AWS vs GCP vs Azure", or "right-size cloud instances". Expert cloud architecture covering AWS, GCP, Azure, multi-cloud strategy, cost optimization, security, and infrastructure automation.

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 to "estimate LLM costs", "count tokens in prompts", "optimize prompt token usage", "compare model pricing", or "reduce LLM API costs".

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 to "evaluate LLM output quality", "set up LLM-as-judge", "build an eval rubric", "compare model outputs pairwise", or "measure agent quality".

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。

Terraform provider acceptance test patterns using terraform-plugin-testing with the Plugin Framework. Covers test structure, TestCase/TestStep fields, ConfigStateChecks with custom statecheck.StateCheck implementations, plan checks, CompareValue for cross-step assertions, config helpers, import testing with ImportStateKind, sweepers, and scenario patterns (basic, update, disappears, validation, regression), and ephemeral resource testing with the echoprovider package. Use when writing, reviewing, or debugging provider acceptance tests, including questions about statecheck, plancheck, TestCheckFunc, CheckDestroy, ExpectError, import state verification, ephemeral resources, or how to structure test files.

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 quick what-if on 2-4 budget scenarios with revenue and ROI estimates. "compare two budget splits"

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。

A/B test content variants by eval score and declare a winner with confidence. "compare two versions of this copy"

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。

Monitor keyword rankings with drop alerts and SERP features. Two-snapshot compare → seo-drift. "track our keyword rankings"

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 two SEO snapshots by script: gainers, losers, drift classes. "what moved after the core update"

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。

Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.

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 compare or benchmark multiple LLMs/agents arena-style but it's unclear which specific workflow fits — a general-purpose win-rate comparison on a custom task, or a benchmark specifically about reference/citation hallucination rate. Also use when the user mentions model arena, agent arena, pairwise model comparison, win-rate ranking, or comparing models on a task and hasn't specified whether that task is generic or about citation accuracy. This skill is the entry router for the arena-eval suite: it asks one diagnostic question when needed, then recommends the workflow or workflows needed to cover the request.

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。

Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.

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 build an evaluation system for an LLM/agent application but doesn't know where to start — they have traces, prompts, RAG pipelines, or nothing at all. Also use when the user mentions evaluation, eval, benchmarking, testing LLM quality, measuring agent performance, assessing RAG accuracy, or wants to compare prompts/models. This skill is the entry router: it asks diagnostic questions then recommends which sub-skill (local workflow) to use next.

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 custom LLM evaluation pipelines using the OpenJudge framework. Covers selecting and configuring graders (LLM-based, function-based, agentic), running batch evaluations with GradingRunner, combining scores with aggregators, applying evaluation strategies (voting, average), auto-generating graders from data, and analyzing results (pairwise win rates, statistics, validation metrics). Use when the user wants to evaluate LLM outputs, compare multiple models, design scoring criteria, or build an automated evaluation system.

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。

File Indian income tax returns for FY 2025-26 (AY 2026-27), or plan FY 2026-27 (Tax Year 2026-27), including current-year advance-tax estimates. Use when the user wants to file their ITR, compute or verify Indian income tax, compare the old vs new tax regime, read a Form 16, AIS, TIS or Form 26AS, reconcile TDS, handle capital gains from Zerodha/Groww/Upstox statements, check their tax refund, or asks about ITR-1/ITR-2/ITR-3/ITR-4, sections 80C/80D/87A/111A/112A, crypto tax, advance tax, or the income-tax e-filing portal - even if they just say "help me with my taxes" in an Indian context.

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 create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'battle card,' or 'competitor teardown.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement.

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。

RFP creation, distribution, evaluation, and shortlisting for in-house legal teams selecting outside counsel. Draft a new legal services RFP from scratch, evaluate firm responses against weighted criteria, produce a shortlist recommendation with selection rationale for GC sign-off, or design the end-to-end RFP process from scratch. Trigger on: 'draft an RFP', 'run an RFP process', 'evaluate firm responses', 'score the RFP submissions', 'which firms should we shortlist', 'selection recommendation', 'how do we run a panel RFP', 'RFP for legal services', 'pitch process', 'firm selection process', 'compare the proposals', 'we're reviewing our panel', 'panel refresh RFP', 'we need to go to market', 'request for proposal', 'evaluate the pitches', 'which firm won the RFP', 'write a legal RFP', 'RFP evaluation criteria', 'design the RFP process', 'how do we weight the criteria'.

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。

Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty, nonobviousness, utility, and soundness framework, connector-aware research, claim-specific tests, and a sustainable adversarial pass. Produces a self-contained green-, yellow-, or red-light report. Use when a law professor or law student asks whether a claim is viable, novel, publishable, preempted, useful, worth pursuing, or better than competing topics; or wants a thesis stress-tested, narrowed, repaired, or compared. No connector is required: use connected legal and scholarly research when available, public sources otherwise, and disclose any no-research fallback.

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。

No Inference / Source-Locked Verification. Forces Claude to answer ONLY from user-provided materials and/or online sources actually accessed — no inference, no assumptions, no gap-filling. Every factual, legal, numerical, or procedural claim must be anchored to a cited source. Use whenever Claude reviews documents, summarises evidence, checks accuracy, drafts submissions, creates timelines, extracts facts, checks citations, analyses rules, prepares legal arguments, compares documents, verifies claims, produces chronologies, works from uploaded materials, performs legal research, checks case status, or does anything where evidential fidelity matters. Also trigger on: 'source-locked', 'no inference', 'only from the materials', 'don't assume', 'stick to the evidence', 'verify this', 'check this is right', 'work from the documents'. Overrides Claude's default tendency to fill gaps. If evidential accuracy matters, use this skill.

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。

Verification-first methodology for the Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), Colombia's transitional justice court under the 2016 Acuerdo Final with FARC-EP. Citations are verified against jep.gov.co before use. Covers the 11 macrocasos (from Caso 01 secuestro through Caso 11 violencia sexual, including Caso 03 falsos positivos), the three sanction tiers (propias, alternativas, ordinarias), TOAR, and the SIVJRNR sister bodies (CEV, UBPD). Guards the key structural distinctions (Sala de Reconocimiento vs Tribunal para la Paz; comparecientes FARC-EP vs Fuerza Pública vs terceros civiles; Acto Legislativo 01/2017 vs Ley Estatutaria 1957/2019). Research aid, not legal advice.

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。

Performance scorecard design, post-matter feedback collection, QBR preparation, and firm comparison for in-house legal ops teams evaluating outside counsel. Design a scorecard framework calibrated to your team's maturity level. Produce post-matter feedback forms for supervising attorneys to complete at matter close. Prepare a QBR pack with agenda, data summary, and talking points for structured business reviews. Produce a side-by-side firm comparison for panel decision-making. Trigger on: 'design a performance scorecard', 'how do we evaluate our firms', 'build us a scorecard', 'post-matter feedback form', 'feedback at matter close', 'collect feedback on the firm', 'QBR', 'quarterly business review', 'prep for the firm review', 'what should I raise with the partner', 'compare the firms', 'which firm is performing better', 'rank our panel', 'firm performance data', 'scorecard framework', 'evaluate outside counsel', 'annual firm review', 'how are our firms performing'.

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。

GDPR Legitimate Interest Assessment (LIA) — Guided assessment for Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR using the EDPB three-step test. Based on EDPB Guidelines 1/2024, EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (AI models), the OSS Case Digest on Legitimate Interest (McIntyre 2026), CNIL AI guidance (June 2025), ICO guidance, and key CJEU case law. Use when: (1) user needs to assess whether legitimate interest is appropriate, (2) user asks about Art. 6(1)(f), "Interessenabwägung", "berechtigtes Interesse", "balancing test", or "LIA", (3) user wants to document a legitimate interest assessment, (4) user mentions the three-step test, (5) user evaluates necessity or proportionality under Art. 6(1)(f), (6) user discusses direct marketing, fraud prevention, IT security, employee monitoring, AI training, web scraping, or credit checks in context of legal basis, (7) user handles a right to object (Art. 21), (8) user asks about children's data, profiling, or cross-border data sharing under legitimate interest, (9) user compares legitimate interest against other legal bases. Do NOT use for: consent assessments (Art. 6(1)(a)), contract performance (Art. 6(1)(b)), DPIA workflows, or pure ePrivacy/cookie compliance questions — though the skill does address the ePrivacy/GDPR overlap where relevant.

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。

Review legal contracts, NDAs, employment agreements, SaaS terms, and M&A documents. Identifies unfavorable terms, suggests redlines, and compares to market standards. Use for contract analysis, due diligence, or negotiation prep.

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。