2,686 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Zero-context verification that every number, comparison, and scope claim in the paper matches raw result files. Uses a fresh cross-model reviewer with NO prior context to prevent confirmation bias. Use when user says "审查论文数据", "check paper claims", "verify numbers", "论文数字核对", or before submission to ensure paper-to-evidence fidelity.
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 the Anti-Autoresearch integrity-forensics sweep (span-anchored evidence ledger → GPT auditors propose findings → a rules-only reporter that lists every proposal with what the auditor said about it) against a paper via a SHA-pinned thin launcher — then convert the verdict into a typed policy gate (BLOCK/WARN/NO_NEW_BLOCKER) and an append-only obligations ledger. Use when user says "integrity forensics", "forensic audit this paper", "投稿前自查诚信", "审这篇论文的诚信", or says "anti-autoresearch" when the upstream repo's own skills are not installed. Also invoked by /paper-writing (submission self-forensics, default ON), /peer-review (forensic appendix), /resubmit-pipeline.
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。
Autonomous multi-round research review loop. In Copilot CLI it defaults to the native complementary rubber-duck subagent with host-event model evidence; elsewhere it uses Codex, while explicit external reviewer overrides remain available. Implements fixes and re-reviews until a policy-approved positive assessment or max rounds is reached.
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 implement evidence-backed simplifications in the ego-lite repository. Use when reviewing the codebase for dead code, duplicated state or APIs, speculative abstractions, unnecessary compatibility layers, hand-written infrastructure, excessive tests or documentation, or when the user asks to reduce code size or maintenance complexity without hiding behavior changes.
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。
Assess community issues, validate technical claims, request missing evidence, and prepare valid work for human disposition.
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。
Answer an explicitly vault-scoped question from an Obsidian wiki without changing it. Use when the user selects the vault as the evidence source: query the wiki, query quick, query deep, explain from the wiki, summarize the vault, find in wiki, search the wiki, or based on the wiki. Do not route ordinary general-knowledge questions here.
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 merge duplicate Linear issues — group reports of the same underlying bug, pick the survivor, and move the evidence across. Use when the backlog has grown noisy, someone asks whether an issue is already reported, or you are cleaning up before planning.
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。
Root-cause a production error with Sentry's evidence before touching code — pull the issue, read the stack trace and breadcrumbs, and separate the crash from its trigger. Use when the user pastes a Sentry link or issue ID, reports a production error, or asks why something is crashing for users.
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。
Performs ARA Seal Level 2 semantic epistemic review on Agent-Native Research Artifacts, scoring six dimensions (evidence relevance, falsifiability, scope calibration, argument coherence, exploration integrity, methodological rigor) and producing a constructive, severity-ranked report with a Strong Accept-to-Reject recommendation. Use after Level 1 structural validation passes, when an ARA needs an objective epistemic critique before publication or release.
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。
Compiles any research input — PDF papers, GitHub repositories, experiment logs, code directories, or raw notes — into a complete Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA) with cognitive layer (claims, concepts, heuristics), physical layer (configs, code stubs), exploration graph, and grounded evidence. Use when ingesting a paper or codebase into a structured, machine-executable knowledge package, building an ARA from scratch, or converting research outputs into a falsifiable, agent-traversable form.
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。
Help clarify human bug reports, search for duplicates, and gather diagnostic evidence separately from a concise issue draft.
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 challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.
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 validating or debugging a workflow in the embedded browser and you need a reproducible, evidence-first loop.
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。
Assess an immutable patch artifact's program impact, regression risk, and auto-merge eligibility. Use for generated patch files, provider pull-request diffs, or commit ranges when reviewers need evidence about affected runtime paths, contracts, tests, and recoverability. This skill is read-only and does not generate, edit, apply, push, or merge the patch.
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。
Triage supplied or imported security findings against a repository using its security policy and static code evidence. Accepts scanner reports, advisories, GitHub findings, and Jira or Linear tickets. Do not use for discovery, duplicate triage, runtime validation, or 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。
Develop evidence-backed structural and architectural security hardening proposals from vulnerability disclosures, supplied findings, incident or assessment documents, source code, or a completed Codex Security scan. Use when a user asks for systemic improvements, alternatives beyond per-finding patches, before-and-after security architecture views, engineering tradeoff analysis, or an implementation-ready plan for a selected hardening option. Also use automatically after a Codex Security scan with reportable findings when the top-level scan workflow requests final-report hardening guidance.
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。
Drive Omnigent the way a user does and prove a behavior with recorded evidence, using an isolated server, runner, and mock model plus a feature map of every user entry point. Load before reproducing a user-facing bug, before claiming a fix works, or when reviewing whether a change covered every surface (session vs. new-session composer, terminal strip vs. agent terminal, all twelve native harnesses). Covers the web UI, native harness terminals, and the CLI.
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。
Emit the complete Resolve handoff with exact modes, outcomes, test evidence, and publication state.
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。
Check the full candidate diff, affected consumers, focused tests, evidence identities, and verification gaps.
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。
Diagnose and draft or explicitly apply paid-ad optimizations using evidence, financial constraints, experiments, and capability-gated adapters. Use for campaign optimization, budget reallocation, bid changes, pausing or archiving ads, requests to delete campaigns, search-term or negative-keyword actions, creative rotation, or improving CPA and ROAS.
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 Claude Ads contracts, scoring inputs, run bundles, capabilities, source freshness, safety, installation, uninstall, or release readiness. Use for ads validate, ads status, ads next, stale claims with missing tool access, maturity checks, ownership-manifest uninstall, preserving unrelated ads-* skills, checksum verification, preflight, QA, or release audits. Missing access must demote stale evidence for the run and block dependent release-current claims before recovery guidance.
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。
Refresh Claude Ads platform, API, policy, regulation, benchmark, issue, pull-request, fork, and repository evidence. Use for ads research refresh, expired refresh_due dates, stale API or platform claims, reverify-or-demote decisions, release-current claim validation, ecosystem review, current platform changes, or updating paid-media knowledge. When tools or sources are unavailable, still demote the stale claim for the current run and block dependent release-current assertions before requesting access.
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 source-grounded paid-ad campaign concepts, messaging, copy, creative briefs, and production plans from a validated brand profile, campaign objective, platform requirements, and optional audit evidence. Triggers on: campaign brief, campaign concepts, create a campaign, ad concepts, ad copy, ad messaging, creative brief, headlines, descriptions.
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。
Add data to an open investigation — documents, interview notes, or observations. Processes batches against the documented pull criteria, surfaces significant items, and logs everything reviewed for coverage verification. Use when new evidence, interview notes, or document productions come in for an open investigation.
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。