「findings」の検索結果

Review a finished epic folder in the ticket tree against the evidence it left behind — the epic file, each ticket plan, diffs, commits — and produce a retrospective with sourced findings, action items, and an acceptance decision. Use when the user says "run a retrospective" or "lets retro the epic [epic]". Supports -H/--headless

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。

Runs one or more installed review lenses — adversarial critique, edge cases, verification gaps, structure, prose — and reports triaged findings. Use when, and only when, the user asks you to review a diff, a pull request, or an artifact — code or documents, one or many — and actually says "review"; an explicit skill:bmad-review directive from another skill counts as that ask. A request to act on feedback from an earlier review is a change, not a review. Never invoke this uninvited, including on edits you just made.

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 code changes with several independent reviewers in parallel, then triage and present the findings. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code"

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 when summarizing analysis results, writing reports, documenting experiment outcomes, or presenting model evaluation — including structuring findings in Japanese with conclusions, facts, assumptions, interpretations, and caveats.

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。

Security audit: supported static findings; qualified profiles add reproduction and repair candidates. (gstack)

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。

Interpret learning analytics data and translate dashboard findings into actionable teaching decisions. Use when reviewing LMS data, quiz patterns, or engagement metrics.

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。

Hardens code against vulnerabilities. Use when auditing an input handler for vulnerabilities, when handling user input, authentication, data storage, or external integrations, or when checking a login flow is safe against the OWASP Top Ten. Use when building any feature that accepts untrusted data, manages user sessions, or interacts with third-party services. Use when auditing dependencies for known vulnerabilities, triaging package-manager audit findings, or assessing supply-chain risk in a new package. Use when personal data or privacy compliance (GDPR, CCPA) is involved.

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 a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

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。

Resolves stuck review findings via a put-up-or-concede exchange. Invoked by the facilitator when a finding survives arbitration without new evidence.

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。

Independent review loop run before delivery in code work. An independent reviewer (Codex, or fresh Codex-style subagents) reads the whole PR against the approved outcome; the lead fixes in-scope functional findings and re-reviews until none remain. Its differentiator is independence and exhaustiveness — a reviewer that fails differently from the authors, run to clean — distinct from the recursive-refinement ladder. Invoked by the team lead from the unified pre-ship gate (code-mode and /swarm:refine) after the ship steps.

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 interpreting biological research findings, evaluating life science evidence, analyzing molecular or cellular mechanisms, comparing competing biological hypotheses, designing or critiquing experiments in biology, genetics, genomics, cell biology, immunology, neuroscience, ecology, or any life science domain. Triggers on questions about gene function, pathways, phenotypes, GWAS hits, single-cell data, animal models, clinical translation, evolutionary arguments, or any biology/life science reasoning 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。

Use when interpreting research findings, evaluating scientific evidence, analyzing mechanisms, comparing competing hypotheses, designing experiments, or constructing scientific 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。

Use when the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

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 web research: gathering cited, multi-angle evidence on a specific question. Triggers on: "research X for me", "do web research on", "look up sources for", "find citations for", "gather evidence on", "what does the web say about X". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), local file search, LLM-as-judge evaluation, or paywalled/auth-gated scraping. Produces a written plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

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。

Mandatory verification steps for all code reviews to reduce false positives. Load this skill before reporting ANY code review 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。

Confirms or rejects findings from review-llm-artifacts before deletes or risky refactors. Loads review-verification-protocol-style checks per finding. Use after a review run, when the user wants to reduce false positives, before fix-llm-artifacts on dead code, or when validating a full-project scan.

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 an implementation against its plan with a hostile peer agent, debate findings to consensus, and drive fix waves until the auditor runs dry. Use when a done-claim needs verification the implementer cannot game ("hostile review", "adversarial audit", "is this PR faithful", "find the escape hatches") — the loop that beats the laziness bias with its own game theory.

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。

Dependency vulnerability remediation workflow for this repository. Use when fixing CVE, BDSA, GHSA, OSV, npm, PyPI, Dependabot, Black Duck, Snyk, or other package vulnerability findings, especially when the user asks for minimal package-only updates, validation, commits, branches, or pull requests.

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 a change with an optional workflow contract using deterministic scope, adaptive cross-model reviewers, verified findings, fixes, and a gate. Use standalone or from wf-impl.

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 claims, quotes, timelines, and findings against supplied source files and return a source map with verified, conflicting, not found, and manual-review statuses. Use when the user asks to fact-check a memo, audit, timeline, executive summary, research packet, or project brief against PDFs, XML, HTML, notes, screenshots, exported chat logs, or other supplied files before sending, publishing, or relying on the result.

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。

Render agent findings as a styled HTML report in the browser. Use when asked for "full report", "detailed report", "show in browser", or when CLI output exceeds the 40-line budget.

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 departures from rational choice theory and their implications for economic analysis and policy. Covers cognitive heuristics (anchoring, availability, representativeness), biases (loss aversion, status quo, overconfidence), prospect theory (reference dependence, probability weighting, diminishing sensitivity), nudge theory and choice architecture, and the integration of psychological findings into economic models. Use when analyzing decision-making under uncertainty, evaluating policy interventions that exploit behavioral patterns, or assessing where standard rational-agent models break down.

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。

Package conversation research into a GSD-ready mission package. Produces a three-stage Vision → Research → Mission pipeline as a LaTeX PDF following GSD/NASA SE methodology, designed to be handed to gsd-skill-creator for execution. Use this skill when the user has been discussing, researching, or brainstorming a topic and then asks to turn it into a research mission, research pack, mission package, or says 'package this as a mission', 'make this a research pack', 'turn this into a mission for skill-creator', 'create a research mission from this', or 'use the research mission skill'. The skill harvests findings, sources, and structure from the current conversation and any prior research, then produces the complete pipeline document. Also trigger if the user asks to 'create a research mission on [topic]' cold — in that case, conduct web research first, then package.

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 ship-safe security and quality audit on the current project. Executes npx ship-safe audit . and reports findings by severity. Use before shipping any feature or PR.

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。