「quality assessment」の検索結果

"Conduct a systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework with explicit search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, quality assessment, and transparent synthesis. Use this skill when the user needs to design a reproducible literature search, apply PRISMA flow documentation, develop inclusion and exclusion criteria, assess study quality, or when they ask 'how do I do a systematic review', 'what is PRISMA', or 'how do I make my literature review reproducible'.".

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。

Content quality and E-E-A-T analysis with AI citation readiness assessment. Enhanced with live Ahrefs (actual keyword rankings, positions) and GSC (search query performance) data to validate static E-E-A-T analysis with real user behavior. Use when user says "content quality", "E-E-A-T", "content analysis", "readability check", "thin content", or "content audit".

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。

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

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。

Knowledge base from the GAO Technology Readiness Assessment Guide (GAO-20-48G, 2020). Use for evaluating technology maturity in acquisition programs and projects: Technology Readiness Levels (TRL 1–9) and related scales (MRL, IRL), identifying Critical Technology Elements (CTEs), the five-step process for a high-quality TRA, the four characteristics of a reliable TRA (comprehensive, well-documented, credible, defensible), Technology Maturation Plans (TMPs), and using TRA results in knowledge-based, milestone decisions. Assessment/maturity oriented: it measures readiness and frames risk — it is not a full SE process model, cost-estimating, or schedule guide (see sibling packs for those).

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。

Knowledge base from the DoD M&Q BoK (the Manufacturing and Quality Engineering Body of Knowledge), v3.0 of July 2025, published by OUSD(R&E). Use for the manufacturing-and-quality view of the defense acquisition life cycle: what M&Q engineers do across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework phases (Pre-MDD, Materiel Solution Analysis, Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production and Deployment, Operations and Support); the twelve M&Q threads (A–L) built on the '5 Ms'; manufacturing feasibility and producibility; Manufacturing Readiness Levels and assessments; Key/Critical Characteristics and process capability (Cp/Cpk, SPC); the standards stack (AS6500, AS9100/ISO 9001, AS9103, AS9145); technical reviews (ASR/PDR/CDR/PRR) and milestone gates; DCMA surveillance; industrial base and supply chain; and sustainment (LCSP, IPS, ILA, ISR). Scope is DoD acquisition M&Q practice on the Major Capability Acquisition path — it is a best-practice compilation, not policy, and is thin on detailed shop-floor process engineering, contract law, and the full text of the cited industry standards (which it names but does not reproduce).

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 LLM outputs using frontier models as judges. Use for pairwise model comparison, quality scoring with custom rubrics, and automated evaluation pipelines. Covers position bias mitigation, statistical significance, and generating preference data for DPO/RLHF.

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。

Content quality and E-E-A-T analysis with AI citation readiness assessment. Use when user says "content quality", "E-E-A-T", "content analysis", "readability check", "thin content", or "content audit".

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。

[BETA] Detect, review, and fix code-quality and correctness issues in an AEM as a Cloud Service project — locally, with no external services or network calls. Use whenever a user wants to check, review, assess, audit, scan, modernize, upgrade, or fix AEM Java, Sling Models, OSGi, or Maven code — for example: "check my Sling Models are implemented correctly", "review my @Inject usage", "are my Maven dependencies up to date", "scan this AEM project for issues", "modernize my Sling Models", or "fix code-quality problems". Name the files to assess, or ask it to scan the repo; it detects issues, plans, and — only when you ask — applies surgical edits on a branch or in place, then verifies with mvn compile. It recognises the intent and handles each issue type itself, reporting anything it cannot yet fix. This skill is in beta. Verify all outputs before applying them to production projects.

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 Archify issues, PRs, or code through value, cost, and impact to support evidence-based maintenance decisions. Use for issue triage, change reviews, and code quality assessments.

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。

Provides qualitative-first, evidence-traceable developmental review of scholarly works and audit low-stakes research-assessment rubrics with optional local quality controls. Never use for ranking people or consequential decisions.

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。

Credit risk data cleaning and variable screening pipeline for pre-loan modeling. Use when working with raw credit data that needs quality assessment, missing value analysis, or variable selection before modeling. it covers data loading and formatting, abnormal period filtering, missing rate calculation, high-missing variable removal,low-IV variable filtering, high-PSI variable removal, Null Importance denoising, high-correlation variable removal, and cleaning report generation. Applicable scenarios arecredit risk data cleaning, variable screening, pre-loan modeling preprocessing.

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。

Deep management assessment — the 'buying a stock is buying a person' layer. For a company or a named executive, evaluate integrity (promise-vs-delivery tracking, crisis behavior, stakeholder treatment), ability (strategic foresight, execution, capital-allocation record) and governance (equity structure, compensation, related-party deals). Outputs a weighted score across integrity / ability / capital-allocation / governance plus Duan Yongping's 3-question verdict ('would you hand this person your money for 10 years'). Use when standard research leaves management quality uncertain, or when management IS the investment thesis.

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。

Scan codebases for technical debt, score severity, track trends, and generate prioritized remediation plans. Use when users mention tech debt, code quality, refactoring priority, debt scoring, cleanup sprints, or code health assessment. Also use for legacy code modernization planning and maintenance cost 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。

Honestly evaluate AI work quality using a two-axis scoring system. Use after completing a task, code review, or work session to get an unbiased assessment. Detects score inflation, forces devil's advocate reasoning, and persists scores across sessions.

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。

This skill should be used for advanced LLM evaluation: LLM-as-judge systems, direct scoring, pairwise comparison, rubric calibration, evaluator bias mitigation, confidence scoring, and automated quality assessment.

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。

This skill helps users automatically extract Amazon product reviews via the Amazon Reviews API. Agent should proactively apply this skill when users express needs like getting reviews for Amazon product with ASIN B07TS6R1SF, analyzing customer feedback for a specific Amazon item, getting ratings and comments for a competitive product, tracking sentiment of recent Amazon reviews, extracting verified purchase reviews for quality assessment, summarizing user experiences from Amazon product pages, monitoring product performance through customer reviews, collecting reviewer profiles and links for market research, gathering review titles and descriptions for content analysis, scraping Amazon reviews without requiring a login.

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。

执行全面的异常值检测与数据质量评估，利用 IQR 方法识别异常值并结合偏度、峰度分析数据分布特征，适用于非正态分布数据的预处理阶段。

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。

Audits existing tests in any language using formal, research-backed test smell names and the testsmells.org 19-smell academic taxonomy. Use when the caller asks for an academic or citable test-smell review, named smell categories, or a formal severity-ranked smell assessment. Covers Assertion Roulette, Conditional Test Logic, Mystery Guest, Eager Test, Sleepy Test, Unknown Test, Sensitive Equality, and the rest of the catalog across .NET, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Go, Ruby, Rust, Swift, Kotlin, PowerShell, and C++. DO NOT USE FOR a quick pragmatic test review (use test-anti-patterns), writing or running tests, framework migration, coverage, or assertion-diversity 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。

Apply the ScholarEval framework to systematically evaluate scholarly work across quality dimensions (novelty, rigor, significance, and clarity). Use to critique academic papers, research proposals, literature reviews, or grant applications and produce a structured, criterion-based assessment.

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 strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints. Output: optimized detailed outline ready for systematic writing (use with academic-paper-composer skill).

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。

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

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 evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and writing with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback.

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 evaluate scholarly work using the ScholarEval framework, providing structured assessment across research quality dimensions including problem formulation, methodology, analysis, and writing with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback.

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。

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

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。