「decision」の検索結果

Act as an end-to-end data scientist: turn business questions into defensible analysis, validated models, and decision-ready reports. Use whenever the user asks to analyze, explore, or profile a dataset or CSV/Parquet/Excel file; asks what drives a metric or why a number changed ("why did churn go up?"); wants to test whether a difference is real (A/B tests, experiments, "is this significant?", "how many samples do I need?"); wants a predictive model (churn, forecast, scoring, segmentation, classification, regression); asks to review an existing analysis, notebook, or model for flaws; or needs results written up for decision-makers. Triggers in any language ("phân tích dữ liệu", "xây model dự đoán", "kiểm định A/B"), even when they never say "data science" or "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。

Activates Warren Buffett's complete investment thinking system. The following scenarios must trigger it: analyzing any stock or company, evaluating investment opportunities, interpreting financial reports/annual reports/shareholder letters, assessing business moats or competitive advantages, evaluating management quality and integrity, making buy/hold/sell decisions, understanding core value investing concepts (compounding/intrinsic value/margin of safety/circle of competence/Mr. Market), analyzing any industry (insurance/banking/consumer/media/energy/railroads/technology), handling capital allocation/buybacks/dividends questions, assessing market sentiment and macro risks, exploring when to sell, analyzing institutional imperative or management behavior. Even if the user does not mention "Buffett," proactively trigger whenever the topic involves investment analysis, business quality assessment, or investment decision-making.

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。

Despliega soluciones de IA para insurance claims automation con arquitectura modular, metricas auditables y decisiones alineadas al contexto del dominio.

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。

Write an Architecture Decision Record — document what was decided, why, what alternatives were considered, and what trade-offs were accepted. Use when asked to "write an ADR", "document this decision", or "why did we choose X".

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。

Engineering ethics covering safety, professional codes of conduct, public welfare responsibility, whistleblowing, case studies (Challenger, Columbia, Hyatt Regency, Bhopal, Therac-25), and the ethical dimensions of design decisions. Includes the NSPE Code of Ethics, the iron ring tradition, risk communication, informed consent in engineering, and the duty to dissent. Use when analyzing ethical dimensions of engineering decisions, teaching professional responsibility, or reviewing designs for safety and public welfare.

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。

Software design principles, patterns, and architecture from SOLID through distributed systems. Covers the five SOLID principles with violations and fixes, DRY/KISS/YAGNI heuristics, separation of concerns, 12 GoF design patterns organized by intent (creational, structural, behavioral), architectural patterns (MVC, MVP, MVVM, layered, hexagonal, microservices, event-driven), coupling and cohesion metrics, dependency injection, and the design decision framework for choosing between competing approaches. Use when making design decisions, reviewing architecture, refactoring code, or teaching software engineering principles.

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。

Organizational strategy and management theory for business decision-making. Covers objectives-based management, the knowledge-worker firm, decentralization, the five management tasks, strategy-as-practice, managerial roles, and the distinction between efficiency and effectiveness. Use when structuring an organization, setting objectives, allocating decision rights, or critiquing a strategy document.

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。

Thinking frameworks for decisions and problem analysis. Use when evaluating options, root causes, or prioritizing.

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。

Traces decisions and requirements through GSD artifacts. Use when user asks "why did we...", "what happened to...", or mentions decision history.

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。

Author and manage Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) in docs/specs/. Use when a significant architectural decision needs to be documented.

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。

Interviews a researcher in rounds until an idea, design, or draft has no unexamined decision — numbered questions, each with why it matters and a recommended answer, facts looked up rather than asked, and settled decisions written to a file. Stages are idea (topic or hunch to a falsifiable question and contribution claim), design (estimand, identification, sample and power, measurement, analysis plan, pre-registration, venue), and defend (reviewer objections to a finished design or draft). Use when the user says "grill me", asks to stress-test or poke holes in an idea, design, or plan, asks what they are assuming, or brings an idea that is not yet a design. --plan grills software or process plans.

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 raw captures (dictated braindumps in a deliverable's inbox/, or recent macwhspr dictation-log entries) into proposed planning-wiki changes, shown as one unified diff. Classifies each statement as a decision, evidence claim, question, task, or dropped item, traces it to its capture paragraph, tags unconfirmed names, numbers, and citations UNRESOLVED, and writes decisions only with the author's assent. Edits only the planning wiki, never source files. Use when asked to intake, absorb notes, or process the inbox, or after dictating notes from a talk, meeting, or reading session.

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。

Plans a research project as a decision map that persists across sessions, resolving one ticket per session until the design is defensible and pre-registerable. The map lives as Markdown in the repository, literature sweeps run as parallel research tickets, and the resolved map compiles into a pre-analysis plan. Use at project start, when a design has more open decisions than one conversation can hold, or when planning restarts each session. Not for executing analyses or writing the paper.

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。

Interviews a researcher in rounds (idea, design, or defend stage) until no decision in a research idea, design, or draft is left assumed, recommending an answer to each question and writing settled decisions to a file. Use for 'grill me', stress-testing a design, or an idea not yet a design; --plan for software or process plans.

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。

Codified expertise for returns authorization, receipt and inspection, disposition decisions, refund processing, fraud detection, and warranty claims management. Informed by returns operations managers with 15+ years experience. Includes grading frameworks, disposition economics, fraud pattern recognition, and vendor recovery processes. Use when handling product returns, reverse logistics, refund decisions, return fraud detection, or warranty 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。

Conduct market research, competitive analysis, investor due diligence, and industry intelligence with source attribution and decision-oriented summaries. Use when the user wants market sizing, competitor comparisons, fund research, technology scans, or research that informs business decisions.

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。

Advanced multi-agent reasoning system for complex questions requiring maximum accuracy. Uses adaptive technique selection, adversarial validation, multi-agent debate, and deep analysis. Trigger phrases "ai board", "expert panel", "deep analysis", "maximum accuracy", "thorough reasoning". Use for critical medical decisions, theological questions, philosophical analysis, complex technical problems, high-stakes decisions, or any question requiring 95%+ confidence.

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。

Validate and improve GitHub Well-Architected Framework (WAF) documentation under the content/ folder for architectural correctness, decision quality, explicit trade-offs, and actionable guidance. Use this when reviewing pull requests, markdown files, or draft content in content/ to ensure recommendations are technically sound, context-aware, and guide readers toward correct architecture and design decisions.

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。

Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when the user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.

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。

Template skill for a leadership-transition / executive cockpit — when someone steps into or covers a leadership role and needs to not drop anything. Produces a handoff doc + decision-rights map, an "open loops" tracker, a team-comms cadence, and a recurring report/update drafter. Trigger on "/exec-cockpit", "handoff doc", "decision-rights map", "open loops tracker", "cover for <role>", "interim <role>". Customize the placeholders to your situation.

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-validate code, architecture or design decisions using a second model. Use for critical decisions, complex refactoring, security reviews.

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。

Record a diamond's next decision (set_target; start_experiment and commit_to_build; release; close; an L0's state_purpose or review). Runs the theory gates each decision needs, validates evidence, and at close runs the executable Definition of Done checklist.

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。

Print your own north-star row from your own record, and nothing else. Reads .claude/harness/decision-log.md, the canvas and the hook logs in this project; prints one line (decisions before the first source file, of which citing outside evidence, kills before code, sessions). Sends nothing anywhere. Opt-in; paste the line where you like or not at all.

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 on any core for first-run planning intake — Phase 0 runs the vendored BMAD-METHOD planning shelf, shared by every core, and Phase 1 (mining `04-prd.md` into intent records plus the Add-ons/sync-and-remote-entities decision) is full-stack-app's and pwa-app's shared procedure — identical mechanics, a different decision at step 5/8. Phase 0 also defines compressed intake, the path a user's explicit "just build it" choice takes on full-stack-app, pwa-app, authored, and copywriting cores: one batched round of questions in place of the shelf, writing a thinned archive at the same paths so Phase 1 (or, on copywriting, that core's own mining step), `ux-planner`, and the Re-entry pass all keep their documented source. Also use for the Re-entry pass, which mines new scope into additional intents without re-running the shelf, on any core with a module axis to add an intent to (full-stack-app, pwa-app, authored) — landing-page has none, so its own new-scope path runs through `hedgehog-landing-loop`'s Correction Protocol instead. Invoked by the `planner` agent, which decides the path; don't run standalone. landing-page runs this skill's Phase 0 on first run, then mines the same archive through `hedgehog-landing-loop`'s own planning-intake section, that core's counterpart to this skill's Phase 1. copywriting runs this skill's Phase 0 the same way (full or compressed), then mines the same archive through `hedgehog-copywriting-loop`'s own planning-intake section into a what/audience/register brief — no module axis, so its own new-scope path runs through that loop's Correction Protocol rather than the Re-entry pass below. An authored core runs this skill's Phase 0, then `hedgehog-core-design`, then this skill's Phase 1 mining against the designed layer sequence. A brownfield adoption (`hedgehog-adopt`) never runs this skill's shelf at all — the drivers BMAD elicits are already settled facts of a repo that already exists.

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。