「does」の検索結果

Run a large, multi-session goal (e.g. shipping a whole side product) through the full V-model closed loop, one phase at a time, with cross-session state and a final north-star acceptance gate. Ultragoals never downgrade the lane: every phase runs CP-1→CP-6 with adversarial verification. Opt-in: invoke with /ultragoal or by calling something a long-running goal. Ordinary work does not run this.

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 one task through the V-model verification loop: CP-2 plan → CP-3 build → CP-3v component verify → CP-4 integration verify (full lane) → CP-5 acceptance. The worker never grades its own homework; evidence rows trace back to AC-n. Opt-in: invoke with /closed-loop or by asking for the closed loop, proper verification, or an evidence trail. Ordinary work does not run this.

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。

ALWAYS invoke this skill when the user asks where the project as a whole stands - "where are we", "what's the big picture", "what have we built", "what is in this project", "map the project", "what does this thing even do", "what is stale", "what can we delete", "update the roadmap" - in any language, and whenever a session report has just been written. It keeps one file, BIG-PICTURE.md: what the product is, every feature with how far it got, which parts nobody has touched, and what is queued next. Age and wiring are measured from git; how far a feature got comes from the reports or says "not checked". Where a tracker is connected it offers to open the queue as tickets, after a yes and never before. Never invents work, never deletes 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 when positioning an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript in the literature. AERJ readers span the whole field, so the paper must engage the literatures a general education-research audience expects and speak past its own subfield. Builds the positioning argument; it does not write the literature review for you.

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 positioning an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript against the literature so it reads as a four-field contribution. AA readers span sociocultural, archaeology, biological, and linguistic anthropology, so the paper must engage the conversations they expect and decenter a US/Anglophone-only canon. Stakes the contribution and citational politics; it does not write the lit review.

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 defending the research design of an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript — fieldwork and participant observation, interview and archival design for ethnographic/qualitative work, material/contextual analysis for archaeology, and appropriate lab/quantitative design for biological anthropology. AA judges each mode on its own terms with reflexivity. Strengthens the design; it does not write code or run fieldwork.

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 defending the research design of an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript — quantitative (multilevel, IRT, quasi-experimental, RCT), qualitative (case study, ethnography, interview), or mixed methods. AERJ judges each tradition on its own terms against the AERA reporting standards. Strengthens the design; it does not write 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 when drafting or polishing an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript so it reads across all four fields, follows AA house style (Chicago author-date; free-format submission accepted), fits the section word caps (Research Articles ≤ 8,000 words; abstract 200 words), and uses inclusive, care-ful language. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

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 running the final pre-submission preflight for American Anthropologist (AA) via the Research Exchange platform — section selection, anonymization, word/abstract caps, Chicago author-date (free-format accepted), DOIs, ORCID, ethics statement, and figure permissions/alt text. Final checks; it does not draft content.

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 writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the handling editor and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new 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。

Use when building exhibits for an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript — photographs, maps, site plans, artifact images, kinship diagrams, transcripts, evidence tables, and multimodal media — so they are self-contained, accessible (alt text), ethically cleared (consent, permissions), and count toward the word budget. Designs exhibits; it does not run analysis or clear permissions for you.

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 planning or reporting the analysis for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript — multilevel/HLM and growth models, IRT/measurement, quasi-experimental estimation, or qualitative coding and thematic analysis. Analysis must meet the AERA reporting standards (warrant + transparency). Strengthens analysis reporting; it does not run models for you.

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 building the conceptual/theoretical argument of an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript into a four-field contribution — whether the work is ethnographic, archaeological, biological, or linguistic. AA rewards a portable concept and reflexive argument over a bare finding or thick description alone. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses or write fieldnotes.

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 deciding whether an anthropology project fits American Anthropologist (AA) and which section to target. AA is the four-field AAA flagship, so the test is significance across anthropology (sociocultural, archaeology, biological, linguistic), not single-subfield novelty. Helps frame the question and pick a section; it does not collect data or conduct fieldwork.

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 writing the response to an American Anthropologist (AA) revise-and-resubmit. AA uses anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, often with cross-subfield reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident and the ethnographic contribution intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate 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。

Use when you need to understand how American Anthropologist (AA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, the four-field editorial board, decision categories, and how section choice shapes the path. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

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 executing and reporting the analysis/interpretation for an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript so it survives expert anonymous review — disciplined ethnographic/qualitative inference, honest interpretation, and (for biological/archaeological work) sound quantitative analysis. Guides analysis and interpretation norms; it does not fabricate evidence or quotations.

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 handling research ethics, consent, community accountability, and data/transparency for an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript — informed consent, anonymization, protection of vulnerable interlocutors, heritage and repatriation obligations, and what (and what NOT) to share. At AA this is an ethics-and-accountability skill grounded in the AAA ethics principles and an ethics of care. Plans the ethics and transparency; it does not grant waivers.

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 starting or navigating any American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript as the entry point. Routes to the right AA sub-skill based on lifecycle stage, subfield (sociocultural, archaeology, biological, linguistic), and section type (Research Article, Vital Topics Forum, World/Public/Multimodal Anthropologies, Review Essay). It dispatches; it does not draft content.

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 drafting the response letter and revision plan after an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) R&R. Structures the reply to theory referees (correctness, generality, exposition) and editor; it does not re-derive the result (see aejmic-theory-model).

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 deciding which aejmic-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) submission. Routes — it does not replace — the specialized 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。

Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Agricultural Systems (AgSy) via the current Elsevier submission path / Editorial Manager — article-type selection, abstract <= 250 words, Highlights, graphical abstract, CRediT and declaration-of-interest statements, funding/AI disclosures, reference style, and data/code/model availability. Final checks; it does not draft content.

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 assembling the proof appendix and any code/data deposit for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript under the AEA Data and Code Availability Policy. Covers proof appendices for pure theory plus numerical/structural/experimental code; it does not run your estimation.

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 extensions, edge cases, or applied robustness checks are missing for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript — covering theory extensions (relaxed assumptions, alternative concepts, perturbations) and applied/experimental robustness. Decides which extensions earn their place; it does not prove the main result (see aejmic-theory-model).

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。