「methodology」の検索結果

Leverage concurrent terminal background processes to debug multiple independent failures simultaneously using ACH methodology. Use when you have 2+ failures across different subsystems.

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。

Systematic methodology for verifying that IA, BE, and FE specification layers are mutually consistent. Covers coverage matrices, field mapping checks, error code propagation, access control consistency, and data contract drift detection.

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。

Design direction interview methodology — SUPERSEDED. The `impeccable` skill's `/impeccable teach` command now handles design direction discovery with a more comprehensive, multi-round interview that writes PRODUCT.md and DESIGN.md. This file is kept for pipeline backward compatibility — all new design work should use `/impeccable teach` 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。

Structured methodology for adversarial thinking — generating attack scenarios, abuse cases, race conditions, and security edge cases against specs and implementations. Produces spec-level gap items, not code-level fixes.

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。

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Runs a 5-seat, role-separated review panel (Journal-Fit Reviewer + 3 peer-review roles + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise; role separation is not a claim of independent error processes. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy, 審查論文, 論文審查, 模擬審查, 同儕審查, 幫我審這篇, 以審查人角度評估, 審查者校準, 논문 심사, 동료 심사, 모의 심사, 심사자 관점에서 평가, 심사자 보정.

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。

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

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。

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題.

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。

Verification methodology and gate checklist for the tdmcp Connectors Directory submission — run the docs build, build and inspect the .mcpb bundle, sweep for stale .dxt references, and cross-check the form-answer draft against the real requirements. Use to validate the submission package before a human submits, by executing commands and quoting evidence, not by trusting that work was done.

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。

SwiftUI coding guidelines covering style, structure, patterns, formatting, and pure-functions methodology. Use when editing or generating SwiftUI code or Swift files containing SwiftUI views, view models, services, or related architecture.

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。

Horizontal-first slicing methodology with mandatory ASCII preview for UIKit layout design

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。

Reflection-first problem solving methodology for Convex development. Use before implementing any solution to ensure proper root cause analysis, 98% code confidence, and minimal change scope.

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: UI standards discovery, UI pattern research, UI audit, pre-handoff UI state coverage review, or when a business-specific child skill needs a stack-agnostic UI methodology to load first.

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。

Analytical methodology skill for intelligence-grade research. Covers cognitive security, logical fallacy detection, source epistemology, and probability discipline. Load when evaluating sources, building analytical assessments, or detecting manipulation in information.

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。

This skill should be used when the user asks to "plan a penetration test", "create a security assessment checklist", "prepare for penetration testing", "define pentest scope", "follow security testing best practices", or needs a structured methodology for penetration testing engagements.

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。

Build a systematic threat hunt hypothesis framework that transforms threat intelligence, attack patterns, and environmental data into testable hunting hypotheses.

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。

Conducts comprehensive network penetration tests against authorized target environments by performing host discovery, port scanning, service enumeration, vulnerability identification, and controlled exploitation to assess the security posture of network infrastructure. The tester follows PTES methodology from reconnaissance through post-exploitation and reporting. Activates for requests involving network pentest, infrastructure security assessment, internal network testing, or external perimeter testing.

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。

Structured debugging methodology — reproduce, isolate, hypothesize, verify. Covers git bisect, binary search, logging, and minimal reproduction.

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。

Designs Bayesian clinical trials including Phase I dose-finding (BOIN, CRM, EWOC, mTPI-2), meta-analytic-predictive (MAP) priors with robust mixtures for external data borrowing, EXNEX for basket trials, hierarchical models for safety AE (Berry-Berry), Bayesian platform trials (I-SPY 2, GBM AGILE, REMAP-CAP), and posterior probability stopping rules. Covers FDA Bayesian Devices Guidance (2010), FDA Bayesian Methodology in Drugs Draft (January 2026), BOIN Fit-for-Purpose qualification (December 2021), and Project Optimus dose-optimisation. Use when designing dose-finding studies, platform trials, or sensitivity analyses with informative priors.

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。

Rigorous methodology for evaluating ML models on established benchmarks. Covers proper train/val/test splits, baseline verification from original papers, exact metric formula discrepancies, data-leak detection checklist, multi-seed robustness, and honest reporting templates. Use when claiming to beat published baselines, writing methods papers, or auditing existing results.

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。

Create high-quality ToolUniverse skills following test-driven, implementation-agnostic methodology.

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。

Perform 12-Factor Agents compliance analysis on any codebase. Use when evaluating agent architecture, reviewing LLM-powered systems, or auditing agentic applications against the 12-Factor methodology.

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。

Simulate Joint Commission tracer methodology to assess compliance with accreditation standards across patient care processes and support 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。

Technical research methodology with YAGNI/KISS/DRY principles. Phases: scope definition, information gathering, analysis, synthesis, recommendation. Capabilities: technology evaluation, architecture analysis, best practices research, trade-off assessment, solution design. Actions: research, analyze, evaluate, compare, recommend technical solutions. Keywords: research, technology evaluation, best practices, architecture analysis, trade-offs, scalability, security, maintainability, YAGNI, KISS, DRY, technical analysis, solution design, competitive analysis, feasibility study. Use when: researching technologies, evaluating architectures, analyzing best practices, comparing solutions, assessing technical trade-offs, planning scalable/secure 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。

Perform 12-Factor App compliance analysis on any codebase. Use when evaluating application architecture, auditing SaaS applications, or reviewing cloud-native applications against the original 12-Factor methodology.

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。