「erd」の検索結果

Applies the computational biology and AI-driven reasoning of Aviv Regev (computational biologist, Genentech, single-cell genomics). Use this skill whenever the user is dealing with experimental design, high-dimensional data analysis, integrating AI into scientific workflows, scaling biological research, or navigating noisy, complex systems. Trigger this for topics like single-cell genomics, drug discovery, biological atlases, interdisciplinary research strategy, or when deciding between depth vs. breadth in data collection.

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 apply the analytical lens of Judith Butler (American philosopher, gender theory, Gender Trouble). Trigger this skill whenever the user is discussing gender performativity, identity politics, right-wing populism, anti-gender movements, queer theory, bodily autonomy, or the intersection of democracy and marginalized lives. Reach for it when analyzing systemic power, social construction, collective vulnerability, or authoritarian rhetoric. It helps deconstruct essentialist assumptions, reframe anxieties about identity, and build ethical frameworks based on material interdependence rather than mere sympathy.

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。

Applies the epidemiological reasoning and population-health frameworks of Albert Hofman (Harvard epidemiologist, Rotterdam Study). Trigger this skill whenever you are analyzing public health strategies, preventive medicine, cohort study design, cardiovascular or neurodegenerative disease risks, or healthy aging. Use it when evaluating whether to use population-wide interventions versus individual screening, assessing risk factors in elderly populations, or tracing adult chronic diseases back to early-life or fetal origins.

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。

Applies the reasoning style of Daphne Koller (machine learning pioneer, co-founder of Coursera, founder and CEO of Insitro). Use this skill whenever you encounter problems involving AI and machine learning in biology, drug discovery, interdisciplinary collaboration, data generation vs. data mining, or transitioning from academia to industry. Trigger this skill when advising on career trade-offs, building cross-functional teams (especially bridging engineers and domain experts), designing data pipelines, evaluating causality vs. correlation, or applying AI to physical systems ('where bits meet atoms'). Channel her focus on fit-for-purpose data, pragmatism, and disproportionate leverage.

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。

Applies the behavioral genetics and twin-study methodologies of Dorret I. Boomsma (behavior geneticist, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). Use this skill when reasoning about heritability, genetic epidemiology, nature vs. nurture debates, psychiatric genetics, or longitudinal phenotyping. Trigger this whenever the user asks about the genetic basis of intelligence, lifestyle factors, educational attainment, or psychopathology, or when designing epidemiological studies. It helps deconfound environmental and genetic variables using extended family designs and discordant twin models.

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 ReasoningBank adaptive learning with AgentDB's 150x faster vector database. Includes trajectory tracking, verdict judgment, memory distillation, and pattern recognition. Use when building self-learning agents, optimizing decision-making, or implementing experience replay systems.

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。

Suede AI combined code review and ship grade in one pass: findings with file:line evidence plus an A-F lane grade, Instant-F security triggers, OWASP checks, a deploy-safety gate, and fix briefs. Use when asked to review this, grade this, security-check this, is this safe to ship, or check this PR before merge: whenever the caller wants both what is wrong and whether it ships. Runs only when explicitly invoked; never auto-fires on a diff, save, or commit. NOT FOR: findings only with accessibility and SEO lanes (use suede-code-review); the letter grade alone (use suede-code-grader); making CI enforce the verdict on merge (use suede-ci-gate); LLM, RAG, or agent behavior coverage (use suede-ai-eval).

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。

Suede AI eval design and coverage audit: AI-SPEC, failure-mode rubric with severity scoring, concrete pass/fail eval cases, coverage and infrastructure scores, and mechanical acceptance gates. Use when a change ships LLM, RAG, agent, classifier, prompt, or generated-media behavior, or when asked to write evals for an AI feature, design test cases for a model surface, audit existing eval coverage, or judge whether AI behavior is safe to ship. No AI-SPEC means no eval plan, and no eval plan holds the recommended ship verdict. NOT FOR: reviewing or grading the implementation code behind the AI surface (use suede-code); wiring a passing suite into CI as a required check (use suede-ci-gate); UAT of the built feature beyond the eval suite (a private Suede Labs companion, not in this pack).

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。

Не для обхода детекторов; не для текста, который тебе не принадлежит. Находит следы машинного текста в русском и объясняет их; переписывает только по явной просьбе; вердиктов об авторстве нет. Отвечает на просьбы вида «очеловечь», «убери гпт-шность», «звучит как нейросеть», «проверь на ИИ», «убери штампы», «убери канцелярит», «сделай живым», «вставка из чата», «копипаста из ChatGPT», contentReference, utm_source, невидимые символы, машинная типографика (40 regex-маркеров, у 38 полная запись доказательств). Finds machine-text traces in Russian and explains them; rewrites only on explicit request; no authorship detection verdict. Английский профиль: только артефакты/факты; исходный код не обрабатывается; юридические и художественные тексты — только детерминированная очистка артефактов. Демо: vladimir-human.github.io/humanizer-ru

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 know if something works — the answer requires running code, not analyzing it. Output is a verdict backed by evidence: passed, failed, or broken. Primary triggers: 'run the tests', 'does X still work after my change?', 'did the merge break anything?', 'verify the fix worked', 'check if the endpoint returns X', 'confirm nothing regressed', 'run tests/unit/test_foo.py', 'let me know the results', 'make sure my changes didn't break anything'. Hard stops — do NOT use for: reviewing test code for quality/coverage gaps, debugging why test infrastructure/databases/seed scripts are misbehaving, writing or fixing tests, diagnosing root causes of unexpected behavior. The deciding question: is the user asking for the result of executing something, or asking for help understanding/analyzing/improving something? If it's the latter, use diagnose or review-code 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。

Generate structured 8-section validation reports with verdict (GOOD/BAD/NEEDS MAJOR WORK), strengths, critical flaws, blindspots, and concrete path forward. Use after strategic-cto-mentor has completed validation analysis and needs to produce final deliverable.

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。

Deploy, manage, and debug Kubernetes in production — Deployments, Services, Gateway API, Service Mesh (Istio/Linkerd/Cilium), eBPF observability (Cilium Hubble), security hardening (Pod Security Standards, OPA/Kyverno, seccomp, runtime security with Falco/Tetragon), Helm, HPA, PDB, topology spread, and debugging. Use when user asks to write K8s manifests, deploy to a cluster, debug pods, set up Gateway API, configure autoscaling, or harden cluster security. Do NOT use for Dockerfiles (use docker), CI/CD pipeline design (use ci-cd), or Terraform infrastructure (use terraform).

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 a task is in code_review - how to read the diff, which findings block, and the verdict move

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 a batch (desktop or mobile) release reaches awaiting_verdict or was rolled back - read-only checks that the published artifact really exists and is served, and the exact yank step for a bad tag

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 a task is in pm_uat - verify every acceptance criterion and the human's comments yourself in the browser, on a device, or over a loopback HTTP request, record a verdict per criterion, then move to human_uat or need_revision

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 you need the end-to-end merge -> deploy -> watch -> verdict sequence for a delivery mode, or a tool result you did not expect (refusal, park, tag 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。

Use when a release reaches awaiting_verdict (or you are woken for an incident) - how to read runtime logs, error groups, health and smoke evidence for the release's component and decide finish, re-check, roll back or hand to a human

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 only after explicit Codex `$superloopy:superloopy-research` or Claude Code `/superloopy:superloopy-research` invocation, a research task started with a leading `loopy` or `루피` (such as `loopy research`), or an active Superloopy loop explicitly routing a research deliverable here. Evidence-backed Superloopy research orchestration with automatic advisory usage targets, parallel read-only lanes, per-retrieval verdicts, graded and dated sources, empirical verification, a priced claim ledger, cited synthesis, and optional reports. Do not activate from research, investigate, look-up, summarize, deep-dive, report, or similar vocabulary alone, in any language; ordinary questions, debugging, and implementation context-gathering stay with their primary workflows.

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。

Reusable reporting contract for any agent that hands work back to the pipeline. Forces ONE of two terminal statuses (DONE or BLOCKED) with a specific evidence shape. Stops vague "probably finished" and "kind of stuck" verdicts.

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。

Reusable 3-round self-challenge + arbiter pattern for filtering false positives from findings/verdicts. Use when the cost of a false-positive gate block exceeds the cost of ~4 extra LLM turns.

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。

Reusable writing-style contract for agent outputs (reports, ARCH docs, verdicts, threat models). Forces direct prose with concrete evidence, no marketing voice, no hedge words. The single most-referenced skill across the pipeline — used by 28 agents.

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。

Shared review framework that every domain reviewer (pci, oracle, gov, edtech, healthcare, mlops, etc.) MUST follow. Defines the output artifact (TM-{slug}.md), mandatory sections, severity scale, verdict format, the workflow scaffold (when-invoked, Step-0 read-inputs, HANDOFF), and the "domain heuristic vs generic check" boundary. Eliminates duplication across the ~30 reviewer prompts.

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 standup or status update built from the coding-agent sessions Cognee recorded — prompts, tool calls, edited files, what was left open — per project. Use only when the user explicitly asks for a standup, a status update, a catch-up on their own recent sessions ("what did I work on yesterday / this week"), or asks for the `cognee-standup` skill by name. Not for questions about code, files or the current task.

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 standup or status update built from the coding-agent sessions Cognee recorded — prompts, tool calls, edited files, what was left open — per project. Use only when the user explicitly asks for a standup, a status update, a catch-up on their own recent sessions ("what did I work on yesterday / this week"), or invokes /cognee-standup. Not for questions about code, files or the current task.

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。