「stress-test」の検索結果

SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; adds a Phase 0 research/recon pass + rebuilt interview) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan or design, one question at a time, recommending an answer for each and exploring the codebase when it can answer itself, until every branch of the decision tree is resolved. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-me-codex", "grill me then have codex review", "grill me and stress-test the plan", "interview me about this plan then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes (auth, schema, concurrency, migrations, payments) and wants both alignment AND a cross-model sanity check before implementation. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-me (MIT). For the docs-aware variant use /grill-with-docs-codex; if you already have a plan and want only the Codex review use /codex-review. NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial 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。

Stress-test a plan by walking its decision tree one question at a time. Use when the user wants to pressure-test a design before implementation.

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 any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict. Based on Karpathy's LLM Council methodology. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'council this', 'run the council', 'war room this', 'pressure-test this', 'stress-test this', 'debate this'. STRONG TRIGGERS (use when combined with a real decision or tradeoff): 'should I X or Y', 'which option', 'what would you do', 'is this the right move', 'validate this', 'get multiple perspectives', 'I can't decide', 'I'm torn between'. Do NOT trigger on simple yes/no questions, factual lookups, or casual 'should I' without a meaningful tradeoff (e.g. 'should I use markdown' is not a council question). DO trigger when the user presents a genuine decision with stakes, multiple options, and context that suggests they want it pressure-tested from multiple angles.

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 and stress-tests financial models for forecasting, scenario planning, and decision support — revenue build, cost structure, driver logic, and the sensitivities that show where a plan breaks. Use this to model a decision's financial consequence, build a forecast or long-range plan, evaluate an investment or hire, or pressure-test someone else's model before relying on it.

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。

Plans under genuine uncertainty — building scenarios, identifying which assumptions are load-bearing, setting early-warning indicators, and stress-testing a plan against futures rather than forecasting one. Use this when a decision depends on something unknowable, when a plan assumes conditions that may not hold, before a large irreversible commitment, or when a market, regulatory, or technology shift could invalidate the strategy.

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。

Simulate structured grant peer review for biomedical proposals; use when stress-testing significance, innovation, approach, feasibility, and reviewer-facing weaknesses before submission.

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。

Adversarial 5-7 question challenge to a deck's pedagogical choices — ordering, prerequisites, cognitive load, motivation. Use when user says "devil's advocate", "poke holes in this deck", "push back on my slides", "stress-test the design", "what would a skeptical student ask?". Read-only; surfaces questions to force rethinking. Lighter than `/pedagogy-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。

Interview the user relentlessly about a plan, design, or topic, checkpointing every answer to a brainstorm file so nothing is lost. Use when the user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on a design, run a brainstorm or discovery session, extract what's in their head into a doc, build up their AI OS context over time, or says "grill me".

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 diverse synthetic test inputs for LLM pipeline evaluation using dimension-based tuple generation. Use when bootstrapping an eval dataset, when real user data is sparse, or when stress-testing specific failure hypotheses. Do NOT use when you already have 100+ representative real traces (use stratified sampling instead), or when the task is collecting production logs.

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。

Stress-test a decision or claim through a sharp, fair Q&A — the questions a good lawyer or skeptical friend would ask before you commit. Use when asked to cross-examine me, ask me hard questions about this, interrogate my plan, or make me defend this. Produces a sequenced line of probing questions (from clarifying to challenging to the killer question), space to answer, and a debrief on where your answers were strong, evasive, or exposed a gap — so weaknesses surface in private before they surface in public.

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。

Surface the hidden assumptions a plan or belief rests on, then test what happens when each one is wrong. Use when asked what am I assuming here, check my assumptions, what if I'm wrong about, or stress-test my thinking. Produces the unstated assumptions your conclusion depends on (ranked by how load-bearing they are), a flip of each to see which one breaking would change everything, and the cheapest way to check the riskiest ones — because the assumption you didn't know you were making is what sinks plans.

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。

Brainstorm evidence-backed options for what to build, or stress-test an idea. Use when: deciding what to build next, comparing options or testing an idea.

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 creative exploration engine. Competing perspectives, stress-tested by a 4-persona council, scored by integrity. The approach that survives attack wins — not the one that sounds best.

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 calibrating expectations for the fast, decisive American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) review process — conditional-accept-or-reject decisions, the single-round model, and pre-empting the objections a short paper cannot afford. Explains the process and stress-tests the paper; it does not write the response letter (see aeri-rebuttal).

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 the identification argument is the bottleneck for an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript — causal identification in an empirical design, parameter identification in a structural model, or treatment-effect identification in an experiment. Stress-tests the strategy so it is clean enough to defend in a few pages, before exhibits are finalized.

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 the question is what makes the result tight or what the data identify for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript — covering both (a) structural/empirical-IO and experimental identification and (b) for pure theory, which assumptions drive the result and how robust the mechanism is. Stress-tests credibility; it does not build the model (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 what characterization and experimental detail an Advanced Materials manuscript must show to prove its structure–property claim, and what belongs in the Experimental Section and Supporting Information. Partitions and stress-tests methods; does not design figures or run 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。

Use when the credibility of the causal evaluation of a policy is the bottleneck for an AEJ: Economic Policy manuscript — DID/event study, IV, RDD/bunching, or RCT of a program. Stress-tests the quasi-experimental policy-evaluation design to the AEJ: Policy bar before exhibits are finalized; it does not build the welfare mapping or write exhibits.

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 the empirical identification of a macro shock or dynamic causal effect is the bottleneck for an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) manuscript — SVAR, local projections, narrative, high-frequency/proxy-VAR, or micro-data macro designs. Stress-tests the identification to the AEJ: Macro broad-interest quantitative bar; for model-parameter identification see aejmac-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 the causal identification argument is the bottleneck for an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) manuscript — RCT, difference-in-differences/event study, regression discontinuity, IV, or shift-share. Stress-tests the data-to-causal-estimate mapping to the AEJ: Applied credibility bar before exhibits are finalized; it does not write the prose or build the package.

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 the empirical identification strategy is the bottleneck for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — exogenous standard / regulatory changes (event study, DID), PSM, Heckman, IV — and you need to stress-test the design before drafting tables. Prefers standard/regulatory shocks as the cleanest accounting identification source.

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 actual theory for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — turning a positioned puzzle into defined constructs, explicit relationships, propositions, and boundary conditions. Constructs the theory; it does NOT stress-test the argument's logic (that is amr-data-analysis) or design any data collection (AMR has none).

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 stress-testing the LOGIC of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) theory manuscript — checking logical coherence, running thought experiments and counterfactuals, addressing alternative explanations and disconfirming cases, and verifying each proposition follows from its argument. This is ARGUMENT DEVELOPMENT, NOT data analysis; AMR publishes no datasets, no statistics, and no empirical 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。

Creates and maintains the scenarios a LiveKit agent simulation runs, and wires the agent to consume them. Use when the user asks "what should I test", "generate simulation scenarios", "write scenarios for my agent", "add a scenario for X", "organize my scenario files", "my simulations are flaky", "the scenario hits my real database", "seed state per scenario", "it passed but booked the wrong thing", "grade the final state", or wants to stress-test a flow before shipping. Covers generating a baseline with the LiveKit scenario generator and refining it, writing the cases generation misses, phrasing simulated-user instructions so they steer reliably, splitting scenarios into sets across files, and the agent-side code that seeds deterministic state from a scenario and fails a run on its final state. To run them use running-livekit-simulations.

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。