「findings」の検索結果

Conduct comprehensive code reviews identifying bugs, security issues, performance problems, code quality concerns, and best practice violations. Use when reviewing pull requests, examining code changes, evaluating new code, assessing code quality, or providing feedback on implementations. Analyzes code for correctness, security vulnerabilities, performance bottlenecks, maintainability issues, test coverage, documentation quality, and adherence to coding standards. Produces structured markdown reviews with categorized findings, severity ratings, specific examples, and actionable recommendations. Triggers when users ask to review code, check pull requests, evaluate implementations, find bugs, or assess code 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。

Forensic case investigation with evidence-graded findings, calibrated to the input. Use when the user asks to investigate a bug, trace what caused an incident, walk through unfamiliar code, or build a mental model of a code area before working on it.

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 optimizing a bundle-plugin or single skill — improving descriptions, reducing tokens, fixing audit findings, restructuring workflows, adding skills to fill gaps, or iterating on user feedback

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 a structured literature review on a given topic by defining a search strategy, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting key findings, and synthesizing results into a coherent academic review. Use when the user requests literature review or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.

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 in-depth, multi-step research on a given topic by decomposing queries, finding diverse sources, cross-referencing findings, and synthesizing a comprehensive report. Use when the user requests deep research or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.

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。

Analyze datasets to answer defined questions through statistical methods, trend identification, hypothesis testing, and correlation analysis. Use when the user needs evidence-backed findings or decisions from data; use exploratory-data-analysis instead for open-ended first-pass profiling before questions are defined.

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。

Plan, execute, document, and retest authorized security assessments of AI agents and multi-agent workflows using safe adversarial cases, synthetic identities, canaries, and evidence-based findings. Use when defining red-team rules of engagement, assessing prompt injection or excessive agency, testing tool and identity boundaries, evaluating memory or cross-agent attacks, scoring a campaign, or verifying remediation in an approved environment.

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 a single retort experiment run. Score the generated code against the task's TASK.md requirements, run its build and tests, compute metrics, and emit a structured evaluation report plus a machine-readable findings file.

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 any Lattice SKILL.md against all tier conventions — atoms, molecules, and refiners. Catches structural errors, broken cross-references, and convention violations before they reach the repo. If you just wrote or modified a Lattice skill file and haven't run this yet, run it now — manual review consistently misses the same categories of errors this skill is specifically designed to catch. Use when the user says 'validate this skill', 'check this skill', 'does this follow conventions', 'review this skill file', 'check my SKILL.md', or 'skill validate'. Reports PASS/FAIL with specific file-and-section findings and actionable fixes. Standalone — does not call other skills.

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。

Research and evaluate u.s. fiscal data with current authoritative sources, provenance, and explicit evidence gaps. Use when the user asks for u.s. fiscal data findings or verification.

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。

Research and evaluate seo competitor analysis with current authoritative sources, provenance, and explicit evidence gaps. Use when the user asks for seo competitor analysis findings or verification.

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。

Research and evaluate microsoft code reference with current authoritative sources, provenance, and explicit evidence gaps. Use when the user asks for microsoft code reference findings or verification.

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。

Research and evaluate microsoft docs with current authoritative sources, provenance, and explicit evidence gaps. Use when the user asks for microsoft docs findings or verification.

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。

Research and evaluate hacker news front page with current authoritative sources, provenance, and explicit evidence gaps. Use when the user asks for hacker news front page findings or verification.

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。

Research and evaluate database lookup with current authoritative sources, provenance, and explicit evidence gaps. Use when the user asks for database lookup findings or verification.

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。

Research and evaluate backlink analysis with current authoritative sources, provenance, and explicit evidence gaps. Use when the user asks for backlink analysis findings or verification.

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。

Search, extract, and compare high-quality public sources with Exa through SandBase. Use when asked for deep web research, source discovery, current evidence, topic investigation, company research, or citation-ready findings.

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。

Research and evaluate github gem seeker with current authoritative sources, provenance, and explicit evidence gaps. Use when the user asks for github gem seeker findings or verification.

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 fix commits address audit findings without new bugs

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。

Audit user-selected Markdown or text files for deterministic plain-language findings. Use only when the user explicitly invokes 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。

Produce an intensive, cited analytical report: executive summary, multi-angle findings, contrarian views, open questions, and full sources. Use only when the user needs rigorous synthesis of a complex topic (scientific, technical, policy, or market-analytical) that cannot be answered with a short search, and wants a formal written report, not a recommendation list. Do not use for product picks, top-N lists, quick lookups, or routine "find out about X" tasks. If the request does not clearly need this kind of report, do not use this skill. Do not use for a literature review over published papers. This skill collects evidence from the open web. A request for the literature on a biomedical, clinical, life-science, or other scientific topic — papers, studies, trials, preprints — belongs to firecrawl-research-papers, which queries Firecrawl's paper index (PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv) instead of searching websites.

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。

Implements Manus-style file-based planning to organize and track progress on complex tasks. Creates task_plan.md, findings.md, and progress.md. Use when asked to plan out, break down, or organize a multi-step project, research task, or any work requiring >5 tool calls. Supports automatic session recovery after /clear.

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 validate, lint, or audit agent skill files (SKILL.md). Use when they say "validate these skills," "check this repo's skills," "lint SKILL.md files," or "audit skills in [repo URL]." Run skill-check locally or against a cloned GitHub repo and summarize findings.

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 question against high-trust primary sources and capture the findings as a Markdown file in the repo. Use when the user wants a topic researched, docs or API facts gathered, or reading legwork delegated to a background agent.

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。