「claim」の検索結果

Auto-grow a pro-workflow wiki by running a budget-capped BFS research loop over pluggable source fetchers (web, arXiv, GitHub). Each iteration pops a seed from the queue, fetches sources, drafts a wiki page, dedupes claims against existing pages, enqueues follow-up seeds. Halts on budget cap, depth cap, or convergence. Use when the user says "research <topic>", "grow the <slug> wiki", "auto-research", or wants a knowledge base that builds itself overnight.

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。

Coordinate multiple Claude Code sessions as a team — lead + teammates with shared task lists, mailbox messaging, and file-lock claiming. Patterns for team sizing, task decomposition, and when to use teams vs sub-agents vs worktrees.

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。

Implement a narrow customer-owned adapter around an approved Abridge tenant interface without claiming a public SDK. Use when coding against vendor-issued integration specifications. Trigger with "build the Abridge adapter".

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 doing ANY task involving Supabase. Triggers: Supabase products (Database, Auth, Edge Functions, Realtime, Storage, Vectors, Cron, Queues); client libraries and SSR integrations (supabase-js, @supabase/ssr) in Next.js, React, SvelteKit, Astro, Remix; auth issues (login, logout, sessions, JWT, cookies, getSession, getUser, getClaims, RLS); Supabase CLI or MCP server; schema changes, migrations, declarative schemas, security audits, Postgres extensions (pg_graphql, pg_cron, pg_vector); debugging and troubleshooting errors or unexpected behavior on Supabase projects (HTTP errors, Postgres errors, RLS surprises, permission denied, schema cache issues, timeouts, Edge Function crashes, Realtime drops, Storage failures) and reading or querying logs (Logs Explorer, ClickHouse).

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。

Organization-grade cloud and supply-chain attack-surface discovery: S3/GCS/Azure Blob bucket discovery via observed-name mining (CNAME/cert-SAN/Wayback) and bounded two-class permutation (6 prefixes x 15 suffixes on trusted tokens, bounded target-bound expansion on subdomain stems), existence (HEAD/GET) vs public-listing confirmation, object-key triage into 9 value tiers (database dumps, credentials, IaC state, kubeconfig, VCS dirs, config, archives, PII, logs), dangling-CNAME bucket-takeover detection, and the ownership-gated severity model that stops an unattributable public bucket from becoming a false CRITICAL; the fully offline AWS-account-ID recovery from a leaked AKIA/ASIA/AROA access key (base32 decode, runnable stdlib Python, canonical test vector, AWS-documentation-example-ID screening); dependency-confusion confirmation for npm/PyPI (internal-signal classifier -- private-registry binding vs org-namespace match -- paired with a read-only public-registry 404 check and the npm scope-claimability nuance the public search API misses); and passive cloud-native/container/Kubernetes/CI control-plane fingerprinting (Lambda URLs, API Gateway, Cloud Run, App Service, kubelet/etcd/K8s API/dashboard, Jenkins/GitLab/Argo CD) as an org-attribution and exposure surface. Passive/discovery only -- no exploitation, no credential submission, no active control-plane confirmation (a stage-6 validate_cloud active tier is described but out of scope). Use when enumerating a target's cloud storage footprint, recovering an AWS account ID from a leaked key, confirming a supply-chain dependency-confusion vector, or fingerprinting cloud-native/K8s/CI infrastructure for an authorized external recon engagement.

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。

Reduce defensive disclaimers, stacked hedging, and self-protective narration when drafting, rewriting, or auditing proposals, articles, case studies, captions, and other reader-facing prose. Use when defensive wording is requested for review or appears in a draft, including wording the assistant adds. Preserve meaningful limits; do not perform general style cleanup or ordinary code work.

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。

Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Use for authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.

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。

Formulate evidence-bounded scientific questions, candidate hypotheses, rival explanations, causal or associational claims, discriminating predictions, measurements, and preregistration-ready analysis plans. Use when turning observations or preliminary findings into transparent, testable research plans without treating hypotheses as facts.

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。

JWT and OAuth token attack playbook. Use when validating token trust, signing algorithms, key handling, claim abuse, bearer flows, and OAuth account-binding weaknesses.

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。

Subdomain takeover detection and exploitation playbook. Use when targets have dangling CNAME/NS/MX records pointing to deprovisioned cloud resources, expired third-party services, or unclaimed SaaS tenants that an attacker can register to serve content under the victim's domain.

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。

API authentication and JWT abuse playbook. Use when testing bearer tokens, API keys, claim trust, header spoofing, rate limits, and API auth boundary weaknesses.

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 a WordPress plugin's Abilities API registrations: enumerate abilities, check that callback behavior matches each annotation's claim (the adversarial readonly-but-writes detection), validate permissions and schemas, and validate audit documents produced by wp-abilities-audit.

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 verification commands and confirm output before claiming success

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 an installed DSH Web plugin misbehaves only at runtime in the browser — paste/attachment/composer features that work once then fail, chips or panels showing stale placeholder state, update chips claiming the wrong version — and the fix must be diagnosed against the exact host API semantics rather than guessed from names. Also use when reviewing a plugin's calls into input-machine or facade verbs (insert, consume, remove, subscribe) before a release.

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。

Standards and audits for writing academic papers, especially ML/NLP submissions to NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, EMNLP, NAACL. Covers the author's house prose rules (zero em dashes, zero fluff, every sentence earns its place), verification of hallucinated claims and hallucinated or malformed bibliography entries, the ACL policy on AI writing assistance and what must be disclosed, and best practices for paper structure, experiments, reproducibility checklists, and rebuttals. Use this skill whenever the user is drafting, editing, polishing, restructuring, or reviewing a paper, abstract, intro, related work, rebuttal, or camera-ready; whenever they ask to "clean up" or "tighten" academic writing; whenever citations or a .bib file need checking; and whenever they ask what has to be disclosed about AI assistance. Reach for it even when the user only says "make this section better", "check my references", or "is this ready to submit".

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。

Judges whether material for children under six is developmentally plausible — what is typical at each age, why pre-K is not a thinner kindergarten, and which frameworks apply where Common Core does not. Use this to design or review pre-K material, decide whether a task is reasonable for an age, choose the right framework for a pre-K alignment claim, or push back on material that pushes school-age expectations downward.

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。

Protects data itself rather than the systems around it — classifying what you hold, encrypting in transit and at rest and understanding what each actually defends against, managing keys and their rotation, handling secrets in applications and pipelines, minimizing and de-identifying, and deleting on purpose. Use this to design data protection for a system, assess an encryption claim, set up key or secret management, or work out what a stolen backup would actually expose.

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。

Covers what the organization owns and what it is only borrowing — trademarks and clearance, copyright and work-for-hire, patents and trade secrets, open-source license obligations and copyleft reach, and IP terms in customer, contractor and AI-tool agreements. Use this to check whether a name is usable, establish that you own work you paid for, decide how to handle a license obligation in a dependency, or respond to an infringement claim.

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。

Handles a dispute from the first sign of it — recognizing when preservation obligations attach, issuing and scoping a legal hold, suspending automatic deletion across every system that holds relevant material, preserving privilege, managing outside counsel and cost, and evaluating settlement against the real cost of continuing. Use this to respond to a claim or demand letter, issue a hold, work out which systems the hold has to reach, or decide whether to fight.

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。

Evaluates where to spend limited capital — investment appraisal, hurdle rates, payback, and comparing proposals that are not alike. Use this to evaluate an investment or major purchase, compare competing funding requests, set a hurdle rate, decide between building and buying, or review whether past investments delivered what was claimed.

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。

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.

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。

Spawn the comment-sicko subagent, fix accepted findings, and offer encodings for claimed constraints.

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。

Matches a user’s biomedical research direction, disease problem, study aim, data modality, and resource constraints to the most relevant recent algorithms and method papers. Always search real recent algorithm literature first, prioritize the last 12 months, expand to 1–3 years only when needed, and add canonical baselines only when necessary. Every formal algorithm recommendation must include the verified primary method paper, plus published downstream papers that actually cite/use the algorithm when such papers are found, with DOI when available. Never fabricate papers, algorithm names, authors, journals, years, DOI, PMID, links, or benchmark claims. If no directly verified algorithm paper is found, say so explicitly.

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。