「evidence-based」の検索結果

Write compelling award submissions, grant applications, and competition entries. Maps achievements to selection criteria using evidence-based narratives. Use whenever the user is applying for a business award (Telstra, chamber of commerce, industry awards), a grant, a competition, or any submission demonstrating merit against defined criteria.

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。

Produce honest product reviews and buying guides without fabricated first-hand experience, using disclosed evidence tiers: verified specs, owner-experience synthesis at scale, expert triangulation, and hands-on only when true. Use this skill whenever the user wants to write product reviews or buying guides without hands-on access, set up a review methodology, add evidence disclosure to review content, align reviews with Google's reviews system or FTC affiliate disclosure expectations, or decide when Review and Product schema are honest to use. Triggers on product review, buying guide, best-of list, review methodology, evidence basis, hands-on testing, we tested, affiliate review site, review disclosure, methodology block, original research, reviews system. Also triggers when review content claims testing that did not happen, or when an affiliate site needs a trust mechanism that survives scrutiny.

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-based clinical decision support and diagnostic reasoning

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。

Turn a novel into a fully playable game on the selected target platform. Orchestrates the whole adaptation pipeline — requirements intake, gameable deconstruction, concept selection, world and visual design, target-runtime build, and evidence-based QA — for a novel in any language. Use for novel to game, story to game, book to game, adapt this novel into a game, turn this book into a playable prototype, make an interactive story or text adventure from this novel. NovelToGame 总入口。把任意语言的原始小说、拆文库或 oh-story 写作工程转成有原著依据、可在目标平台完整游玩的游戏，编排游戏化拆解、概念选择、游戏与视觉设计、目标运行环境构建和证据化质量验证。用于小说转游戏、把这本书做成游戏、把小说改成互动小说 / 互动叙事 / 文字冒险游戏等需求。

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。

Map evidence-based connections between a wellbeing initiative and specific academic learning outcomes. Use when justifying wellbeing programmes, integrating SEL, or linking pastoral and academic work.

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。

Select evidence-based study strategies matched to material type, learning goal, and student habits. Use when advising students on revision techniques, homework, or independent study approaches.

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 a focused lesson observation protocol with specific look-fors and evidence collection methods. Use when planning peer observations, coaching visits, or developmental classroom visits.

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 skill when the user wants an evidence-based research memo, literature review, market/policy/technical landscape, or a multi-source decision brief with citations, trade-offs, and a clear conclusion. Best for tasks that need synthesis across multiple external sources, iterative follow-up research, or a reusable written artifact. Do not use for quick factual lookups, single-source summaries, simple Q&A, summarizing one document the user already provided, plan-only requests where the user explicitly defers the actual research, or when the user wants a short answer with no need for cited evidence (a short but evidence-backed conclusion is still a brief memo, which this skill covers). Chinese trigger examples: "帮我调研", "深度研究", "综述报告", "技术选型分析", "竞品研究", "政策分析".

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。

Creates evidence-based documentation following DIVIO/Diataxis principles. Use when writing tutorials, how-to guides, reference docs, or explanations.

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 evidence-based product discovery through customer interviews and assumption testing. Use at project start to validate problem-solution fit.

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。

Enhanced academic paper review response workflow with Agy/CLI collaborative analysis and multi-perspective discussion. Produces structured rebuttal documents with evidence-based strategies. Triggers on "rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "review response", "审稿回复".

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, revise, and format thesis or dissertation Word documents with strict academic formatting control. Use when an AI agent needs to generate or revise thesis content, normalize Word styles, follow a school template, fix captions or page numbers or section levels, or produce evidence-based Mermaid figures and LaTeX-formatted code listings for a thesis document.

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 mathematical-modeling paper's model-assumption section against the complete problem statement. Diagnose whether each assumption is necessary, evidence-based, compatible with the task, appropriately simplified, and usable by the later model. Use for assumption review, not automatic full-paper review or unsupported assumption generation.

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。

Reconstruct evidence-based work descriptions and append user-confirmed durations to TIME.csv. Use for time logging and corrections; never infer hours or billing from activity.

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 a grant or challenge proposal for a radiology or medical AI project, including a Korean government industry-academia plan. Structures significance, innovation, approach, aims, milestones and consortium roles, keeping claims evidence-based and executable.

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-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not plan the structural change a root cause calls for — use plan-a-change. Does not map bounded contexts or domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.

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。

Builds a new Claude Code skill from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the skill's design tree decision-by-decision — entity fit, use cases, name, description, workflow steps, tools, and progressive-disclosure layout — then reviews the finished skill against the plugin-building guidance and applies every fix it finds. Use when creating, authoring, scaffolding, designing, or drafting a new skill or slash command. Does not build an agent or subagent — use agent-builder. Does not serve, vendor, or refresh the authoring guidance itself — use 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。

Runs an evidence-based investigation of a bug, failure, or unexpected behavior with investigate and publishes the resulting investigation report to a user-specified Confluence location. Use when the user wants something debugged, diagnosed, or root-caused AND the findings posted to a Confluence space or page. Requires a configured Atlassian MCP server. Does not investigate to a local file only — use investigate. Does not publish an arbitrary existing markdown file — use markdown-to-confluence. Does not document an already-understood feature to Confluence — use project-documentation-to-confluence. Does not plan or specify a new feature to Confluence — use plan-a-feature-to-confluence. Does not publish to Jira — use work-items-to-jira.

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。

Builds a new Claude Code agent (subagent) from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the agent's design tree decision-by-decision — entity fit, domain focus and vocabulary, role identity, anti-patterns, description, model tier, tools, and self-containment — then reviews the finished agent against the plugin-building guidance and applies every fix it finds. Use when creating, authoring, scaffolding, designing, or drafting a new agent or subagent. Does not build a skill or slash command — use skill-builder. Does not serve, vendor, or refresh the authoring guidance itself — use 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。

Builds a feature specification from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the design tree decision-by-decision, resolving dependencies as it goes. Use when the user wants to plan, design, scope, specify, or flesh out a new feature, capability, or system behavior before implementation. Produces a feature specification focused on system behaviors, not implementation detail. Does not plan a restructure of code that already exists — use plan-a-change. Does not refine or stress-test an existing plan — use iterative-plan-review. Does not document already-built features — use project-documentation. Does not design the contract for an interface — use design-an-api. Does not research open-ended options before there is a feature to specify — use research. Does not map the bounded contexts of existing code — use ddd-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。

Design, implement, audit, or refactor web and game-adjacent interfaces using an evidence-based Hypergryph visual language with two independent choices: product family and application depth (1 minimal, 2 moderate, 3 complex, 4 maximal). Use for Hypergryph-, Arknights-, Endfield-, Rhodes Island-, industrial sci-fi-, editorial game-UI-, or bilingual technical-interface requests; for landing pages, dashboards, menus, HUD-like panels, design systems, HTML/CSS/JS/React components, and visual QA where the result should carry this family resemblance without copying protected logos or artwork.

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。

Teach any topic deeply from first principles and build evidence-based paths toward exceptional capability. Use when a user asks to understand, explain, learn, or deep-dive into a topic; asks why or how something works, why it matters, how alternatives compare, or what different perspectives reveal; requests current paradigms, a complete roadmap or curriculum, deliberate practice and feedback, or a top-1%-level mastery plan. Answer explanation questions completely before offering a curriculum; route explicit mastery goals to an adaptive practice and proof-of-capability system.

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 preliminary, evidence-based EU AI Act readiness assessment across AI-system inventory, territorial scope, operator roles, prohibited-practice screening, risk classification, transparency, high-risk controls, general-purpose AI obligations, governance, and implementation milestones. Use when an organization needs to triage an AI use case, vendor, model, product, or portfolio for Regulation (EU) 2024/1689; prepare an AI inventory, gap register, implementation roadmap, or counsel briefing; assess provider, deployer, importer, distributor, product-manufacturer, authorised-representative, or GPAI-provider responsibilities; or re-check readiness after regulatory or product 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。

Plan, execute, document, and retest authorized security assessments of AI agents and multi-agent workflows using safe adversarial cases, synthetic identities, canaries, and evidence-based findings. Use when defining red-team rules of engagement, assessing prompt injection or excessive agency, testing tool and identity boundaries, evaluating memory or cross-agent attacks, scoring a campaign, or verifying remediation in an approved environment.

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。