「cause」の検索結果

The systematic discipline of reviewing AI-generated and human-written marketing content for quality, accuracy, consistency, and effectiveness. This isn't proofreading—it's strategic quality control that catches issues before they damage brand, waste spend, or miss opportunities. In an era where AI can generate content at scale, QA becomes the bottleneck— and the moat. Speed without quality is just fast failure. Every piece of content is a brand promise, and QA ensures that promise is kept. Content QA operates at multiple levels: tactical (spelling, grammar), strategic (message alignment), technical (platform compliance), and brand (voice, tone). The best QA catches what the creator couldn't see because they were too close. Use when "review content, QA, quality check, proofread, check copy, content review, brand compliance, verify content, fact check, review before publish, content approval, final review, qa, content-review, quality-assurance, brand-compliance, proofreading, content-quality, review" mentioned.

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。

Validates PRD, user stories, or feature requirements against SMART criteria. Use when reviewing requirements to catch vagueness before it causes expensive rework.

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。

Refuses "flaky" as a diagnosis. Turns an intermittent failure into a reproduction by isolating it from the environment, naming the variable that controls it, forcing that variable, and measuring before and after with enough runs to count. Separates real defects from environment contention with evidence, and never retries to green or widens a threshold. Use when a test, performance check, or deploy step fails intermittently or passes on rerun.

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。

Captures reusable knowledge after work is done — learnings from feedback or failures, resolved bugs (symptom, root cause, prevention), and recurring code patterns — into the project's persistent memory file. Use after feedback, a non-trivial bug fix, a failed attempt, or the third repetition of a pattern.

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。

Summarize noisy logs into likely causes and next steps. Use when a junior developer needs help interpreting logs.

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。

Decide which model, effort level, and cascade shape each subagent gets, and how to keep improvement loops safe (evaluator-as-selector, stop on regression). Routes on measured cost-per-completed-task rather than per-token price, because a tier's token count varies more by task shape than price varies across tiers. Covers per-model effort semantics, the concision lever, cascade preconditions, context handoff, and watching a subagent fan-out live. Use when choosing a subagent's model or effort, when choosing how to escalate a failed attempt, or when asked which model or effort a task should get. Grounded in a 2026-07 calibration, a 2026-08 coding-cost study, a 2026-09 seeded-bug repair battery, a 2026-10 Haiku 5.5 ladder priced per spawn, and a 2026-10 retry-versus-escalation ladder on 295 SWE-bench Verified tasks; Managed Agents API specifics are operational, not calibrated.

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。

Convenes expert panels for problem-solving. Use when user mentions panel, experts, multiple perspectives, MECE, DMAIC, RAPID, Six Sigma, root cause analysis, strategic decisions, process improvement, or asks for philosophers/ancients (Socratic, Aristotelian, Stoic method experts).

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 strict code reviewer, pair programmer, debugger, and mentor for Python, Bash, Google Apps Script, JavaScript, and Swift/Apple platforms. Use when writing, reviewing, debugging, planning, or securing code, or for senior-level rigor, a security review, or mentoring. Mode triggers — REVIEW: (critique + refactor), EXPLAIN: (teach), MVP:/PROTOTYPE: (lean-but-safe), DEBUG: (root-cause), AUDIT: (report-first); default is pair-programming. Drives a spec→plan→TDD→verify loop with a deterministic-first, verify-before-asserting (anti-hallucination) discipline. Enforces a security floor (secrets, injection, input validation, isolation, least privilege, authn) and a backup/continuity floor on a phase-aware rigor ladder (Prototype→MVP→Production) — cheap ≠ insecure. Covers testing & fuzzing, SAST/secret-scan/type-check/supply-chain gates, multi-tenant data protection, resilience & DR, scalability, CI/CD, cloud/containers/DBs, and accessible UI — deep references read on demand.

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 an unexplained defect or unexpected behavior without changing application code. Use for root-cause diagnosis and an evidence-backed handoff, including a bounded unresolved result. Not for implementing a known fix, new features, or explanation-only questions.

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 an unexplained defect or unexpected behavior without changing application code. Use for root-cause diagnosis and an evidence-backed handoff, including a bounded unresolved result. Not for implementing a known fix, new features, or explanation-only questions.

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。

MBB-level management consultant with mastery over structured thinking, frameworks, guesstimation, industry analysis, and executive-grade deliverables. Use this skill for: solving business problems, structuring cases, market sizing, profitability analysis, market entry, M&A, pricing, operations, digital transformation, org design, and any consulting deliverable (deck, memo, one-pager). Trigger on: "consulting framework", "MECE", "issue tree", "hypothesis-driven", "80/20", "McKinsey", "Bain", "BCG", "strategy consulting", "management consulting", "problem statement", "root cause", "executive summary", "due diligence", "case study", Porter's Five Forces, 3C's, Ansoff, value chain, or any structured business problem-solving and strategic analysis 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。

Computes a numeric or categorical answer to a quantitative data-science question by cleaning and analyzing local data files (CSV, Excel, TSV, and scientific formats .npz/.fits/.h5) with pandas, numpy, and scipy. Use whenever a task ships its own dataset (in whatever local directory it provides) and asks you to derive a value via statistical, geospatial, temporal, ratio, percentage, growth-rate, correlation, signal-processing, orbital, or forecasting analysis. Spans domains including archeology (demographics, paleoclimate proxies, radiocarbon dating, historical conflicts); biomedical/bioinformatics (tumor histology, genes, proteins, peptides, genomic variants); environmental (water quality, bacterial/Enterococcus exceedance, rainfall correlations, environmental justice); legal/consumer (fraud, identity theft, consumer complaints by state/metro); wildfire (incidents, causes, suppression costs, acres burned, fatalities, geospatial intersections); and astronomy/heliophysics/space weather (satellite telemetry TLE/Swarm/SP3, indices OMNI/GOES, solar activity, atmospheric density, orbital mechanics, forecasting).

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 frameworks of Aristotle (ancient Greek philosopher, logic, ethics, metaphysics, 384-322 BCE) to decision-making, ethics, and analysis. Use this skill whenever the user is grappling with moral dilemmas, character development, habit formation, finding balance (the Golden Mean), persuasive communication (rhetoric), or understanding the root causes and ultimate purpose (teleology) of a project or system. Reach for this skill even if the user doesn't name Aristotle, especially when discussing career fulfillment, long-term happiness (eudaimonia), balancing extremes, or structuring persuasive arguments.

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。

Find and repair unresolved root causes.

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。

Fix bugs and broken behavior when there is enough evidence to act on a repair path. Use for errors, crashes, incorrect results, API failures (500, 404, 403), CORS problems, database exceptions, broken rendering, duplicated or wrong data, off-by-one mistakes, timezone/date bugs, broken forms, config-caused runtime failures, and regressions. Trigger when the user wants the bug repaired and the conversation already contains a clear failing area, a reproducible failing test, a concrete error path, or a prior diagnosis to implement. Do NOT use for new features, pure explanation, architecture discussion, broad research, or bug reports where the main need is figuring out why the behavior happens — use diagnose for that.

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。

Four-phase debugging process - root cause first, then fix. Use when encountering bugs or unexpected behavior.

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 in code_review was sent back before (an earlier need_revision comment exists) - verify every prior point was fixed at its root

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 monitoring alert end-to-end. Pulls metrics, logs, traces, and recent code changes to identify root cause. Works with any monitoring MCP.

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。

Imagine the project has already shipped and failed catastrophically — work backwards from the failure to identify the most likely causes BEFORE building. Forces concrete risk identification, not vague "what could go wrong" lists.

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。

The methods a financial-ML result has to survive before it is evidence — purged cross-validation with an embargo, triple-barrier labelling, sample uniqueness under overlapping labels, fractional differentiation, meta-labelling, and multiple-testing correction. Written because the invariants were required of quant-researcher and nothing in the project explained how to satisfy them: a rule without a method produces either an invention or a block. Applied whenever a backtest, a feature or a label is being designed or judged.

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。

Auto-fix bugs. Observe symptom, find root cause, apply minimal fix, verify, explain in human terms.

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。

Step 2 of debugging: reason about root cause based on observed symptoms.

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 any client-facing message or material (emails, letters, newsletters, social posts, website copy, presentations, performance reports, proposals) for compliance with SEC rules that govern investment advisers — the Marketing Rule (206(4)-1), fiduciary duty / antifraud provisions (206), Books and Records (204-2), and Reg BI where broker-dealer activity applies. Produces a pass/flag/fail markup, required disclosures, a books-and-records scratch-pad entry, and an archiving handoff reminder. Triggers on "compliance check", "/compliance", "is this compliant", "review this before I send it", "can I say this to a client", "check this email/post/deck". Use it whenever an advisor asks to check, review, or look over anything before it goes to a client or prospect — "check this before I send it", "look this over before it goes out" — even a routine note, because deciding that a message needs no changes is part of the review, not a reason to skip 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。