「evidence」の検索結果

プロジェクトのコードや設定を根拠に、ECCのスキル・ルール・フックなどを毎回読み込むものと必要時に参照するものに分け、導入計画と検証結果をまとめます。

• プロジェクトに必要なECCの選定
• 常用する機能と参照用機能の整理
• 古い言語ルールや非対応フックの確認

絞り込んだ競合を九つの観点で採点し、根拠付きの比較カードと戦略の二軸図に整理するスキル。各社の強みや、自社が狙う領域の競合を確認します。

• 競合を共通の基準で比較したいとき
• 出典付きの競合紹介カード作成
• 戦略の二軸で競合を配置したいとき

最新の公開情報と手元の資料を照合し、事実・推測・提案を分けて調査結果をまとめます。単発の確認、選択肢の比較、人物や企業の調査に合わせて調べ方を選ぶスキルです。

• 手元の資料を最新情報で検証したいとき
• 意思決定のために候補を比較したいとき
• 相談先の人物や企業を調べたいとき

論文や研究計画を共通の評価基準で読み、研究方法、根拠、引用、文章構成を点検するスキル。評価の理由と修正の優先順位、次に直す内容を整理します。

• 投稿前の論文を見直したいとき
• 引用が主張を支えるか確認したいとき
• 研究方法と限界を評価したいとき

候補の探索や比較を繰り返し、試行の根拠と判断を追記型の台帳に残すスキル。前回との整合性や再検証の結果を確認し、実取引や本番操作へ進む条件を明確にします。

• 試行を重ねて候補を比較したいとき
• 判断の根拠を記録したいとき
• 新情報で前回の採用候補を見直したいとき

ネットワーク間で経路を交換するBGPの接続断や経路不足を、接続状態・到達性・経路の制御設定から調べ、設定を変えずに診断材料を集めるスキル。

• BGP接続断や不安定さの調査
• 期待する経路がない原因の調査
• 経路フィルターとAS pathの確認

売上・返金・重複課金を請求データから整理し、チーム課金や利用権限の実装まで確認するスキル。料金表示と実際の動作を照合し、運営の判断材料をまとめます。

• 売上と契約状況を把握したいとき
• 重複課金や返金の原因調査
• チーム課金の実装を確認したいとき

プロジェクトのコードや設定を根拠に、ECCのスキル・ルール・フックなどを常時読み込むものと必要時に参照するものへ分類し、導入計画と検証結果をまとめます。

• プロジェクトに合うECCを選びたいとき
• 常用スキルと参照用を分けたいとき
• 古いルールや非対応フックの整理

AIエージェントの成果物を、正確さ・網羅性・明瞭さ・実行しやすさ・簡潔さの5軸で自己評価し、根拠付きの点数と優先順位を付けた改善案をまとめます。

• 複数ファイルの実装後の自己評価
• 複数工程を終えた成果物の点検
• 設計文書や分析レポートの評価

Extract and verify evidence from images, documents, and video without redundant inspection

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。

Evaluates scientific claims and evidence quality. Applies to experimental design validity, biases and confounders, statistical interpretation, evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), and teaching critical analysis. Supports evidence appraisal and identifying flaws; formal peer review writing belongs to peer-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。

Prepares and structurally reviews readiness evidence for ISO management-system and laboratory-competence standards - ISO 13485 medical device QMS, ISO 14971 device risk management, ISO/IEC 17025 testing and calibration laboratories, and ISO 15189 medical laboratories. Use when organizing declared scope, controlled documents, risk-management files, scope of accreditation, traceability, CAPA, external-provider controls, or bounded local evidence manifests, and when separating ISO certification from laboratory accreditation, FDA QMSR inspection, CLIA certification, MDSAP, and EU MDR/IVDR evidence boundaries. Not for legal applicability, compliance, certification, or accreditation decisions; contains no clause text.

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。

Retrieves ClinGen gene-disease validity assertions for a public gene or disease, and reviews source-linked public evidence and literature for one supported GRCh38 germline nuclear SNV or simple indel through Folklore Clinical Variant Interpretation MCP. Used when a scientific agent must branch deterministically on resolved, ambiguous, not-found, invalid, unsupported, or unavailable variant outcomes; chain a resolved public variant into related literature or publication details; or preserve evidence provenance without accepting patient, phenotype, family, segregation, or private case data.

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 an auditable evidence map for a contested technical choice, research synthesis, proposal review, or consequential decision. Use when Copilot must preserve supporting, contradicting, qualifying, and missing evidence with exact source regions instead of collapsing disagreement into prose.

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 forensically sound bit-for-bit disk images with dd or dcfldd on a Linux forensic workstation, preserving evidence integrity through hash verification (MD5/SHA) during acquisition. Use when imaging a suspect drive, USB device, or memory card for investigation, preserving volatile disk evidence during incident response, or producing a verified copy for legal or law-enforcement proceedings before any destructive analysis.

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。

Compliance OS — meta-orchestrator that lets compliance teams CONFIGURE which frameworks apply, COMPUTE cross-framework control overlap, SIMULATE internal audits, and CONSOLIDATE evidence across multiple frameworks. Four decisions: (1) Given a company profile, which of the 12 supported frameworks apply (ISO 27001/13485/42001/14971, EU AI Act, MDR 745, GDPR, SOC 2, FDA QSR, NIST CSF 2.0, NIS2, HIPAA)? (2) Across selected frameworks, which controls overlap and how much evidence reuses? (3) For a given framework + scope, what does a realistic mock audit produce — drawing from the 205-scenario library? (4) Across selected frameworks, what's the unified evidence checklist with reuse map? Use when standing up a multi-framework program, planning the annual audit calendar, or preparing for certification stage 1. Does NOT replace per-framework skills (it orchestrates them).

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。

Evidence-grounded context refresh: reads constitutional files, TELOS, and CURRENT_STATE/IDEAL_STATE dimension files via TelosFreshness, pulls observed data (Oura sleep/HRV, Conduit app-time, work registry, git, expenses via StateEvidence), and drives a peer conversation that opens with claim-vs-evidence contradictions, drafts corrections for ratification, and closes with a ComputeGap-grounded ideal-state review. Routes to ContextCheckin; Phase0Setup on fresh install. USE WHEN /interview, resume interview, context check-in, telos check-in, what's stale, stale data, freshness check, update current state, update my current state, state sync, statusline says interview due, interview due, review TELOS, update ideal state, quarterly context refresh, fresh LifeOS install, configure DA name. NOT FOR single edits (Telos), bulk intake (Migrate), identity-only.

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。

Evidence-capture and PoC-redaction discipline for bug-bounty submissions: cookie redaction protocol (which fields to mask, Preview annotation / Burp panel hiding / DevTools workflow), PII black-bar discipline (what to mask in other-user data — names, emails, phones, faces — vs what is safe to leave — usernames, trace IDs, request bodies), HAR file sanitization (jq filters for Cookie/Set-Cookie/Authorization headers), Burp Repeater/Intruder screenshot hygiene (hide request body, show only Results table for rate-limit attacks), Chrome DevTools Console PoC patterns (credentials include so cookies are not echoed, labeled console.log), screenshot capture order, filename conventions, post-submission rotation hygiene. Use BEFORE any PoC screenshot, BEFORE attaching a HAR, or whenever preparing evidence with session cookies or other-user PII. Pairs with bugcrowd-reporting and report-writing.

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。

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-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。

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-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。

Generate professional clinical decision support (CDS) documents for pharmaceutical and clinical research settings, including patient cohort analyses (biomarker-stratified with outcomes) and treatment recommendation reports (evidence-based guidelines with decision algorithms). Supports GRADE evidence grading, statistical analysis (hazard ratios, survival curves, waterfall plots), biomarker integration, and regulatory compliance. Outputs publication-ready LaTeX/PDF format optimized for drug development, clinical research, and evidence synthesis.

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。

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-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。

Systematically maps mechanism evidence for a disease from molecules to pathways, cell types, tissues, biological consequences, and clinical phenotypes. Always use this skill when a user needs a layered mechanism evidence chain rather than a flat summary or immediate gap analysis. Formal literature citations must be real and verifiable.

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。

Rapidly maps the evidence landscape around a medical topic by organizing major research streams, target populations, endpoints, methods, evidence density, and thin areas. Use this skill BEFORE medical-research-gap-finder — it provides the structured landscape that makes formal gap analysis more rigorous. Do not use for formal gap identification, study design, or protocol planning directly.

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。