「trade-offs」の検索結果

Design game concepts from a novel. From SOURCE_BIBLE and PRODUCT_BRIEF, compare meaningful alternatives on the dimensions still unlocked, then select a playable direction using hard vetoes and explicit trade-offs. Use for what game should this novel become, compare game concepts, choose a game direction for this book, decide whether this novel should become an interactive story. 小说游戏概念设计。根据 SOURCE_BIBLE 与 PRODUCT_BRIEF 比较未锁定维度上的有效替代方案，用硬否决和关键取舍选择可玩方向。用于判断小说适合做成什么游戏、该不该做成互动叙事、比较游戏方案等需求。

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。

Use when implementing state machines in Godot — enum-based, node-based, and resource-based FSM patterns with trade-offs

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 writing production-grade GDScript — performance idioms, metaprogramming, @tool lifecycle, async pitfalls, signal/Callable trade-offs, profiler-driven idioms, and common pitfalls

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。

Designs system architecture with C4 diagrams and technology selection. Routes to the right architect based on design scope (system, domain, application, or full stack). Two interaction modes: guide (collaborative Q&A) or propose (architect presents options with trade-offs).

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。

The Balanced Coupling model for software design. Use when: designing modular architectures, evaluating coupling between components, reviewing code modularity, deciding whether to split or merge modules/services, assessing integration patterns, classifying coupling as balanced or unbalanced, applying DDD strategic and tactical patterns, reasoning about cohesion vs coupling trade-offs, identifying distributed monolith risks, or explaining why a system is hard to change. Provides the three-dimensional framework (integration strength, distance, volatility) and the balance rule for making coupling 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。

Guide developers through capturing diagnostic artifacts to diagnose production .NET performance issues. Use when the user needs help choosing diagnostic tools, collecting performance data, or understanding tool trade-offs across different environments (Windows/Linux, .NET Framework/modern .NET, container/non-container).

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。

Track and document analytical assumptions and decisions. Use when making analytical choices, documenting trade-offs, ensuring transparency, or creating audit trails for analytical 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。

Python framework for single- and multi-objective optimization with evolutionary algorithms. Define vectorized objectives and constraints; solve with NSGA-II, NSGA-III, MOEA/D, GAs, or differential evolution. Analyze Pareto fronts, visualize trade-offs, customize operators and callbacks. For engineering design, hyperparameter search, and conflicting objectives. Alternatives: scipy.optimize (single-objective, gradient), platypus, jMetalPy (Java).

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。

Selects and routes to the right architecture paradigm. Use when choosing patterns for a new system or comparing trade-offs before making architecture 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。

Researches an open-ended question — options, possible solutions, prior art, trade-offs, or how something works — and produces a durable, evidence-backed, adversarially-validated report that recommends an option without committing the team to any artifact. Use when you want to research approaches, weigh options, survey prior art or the state of the art, or understand how something works before committing to a direction. Does not diagnose a bug, failure, or root cause — use investigate. Does not specify a feature — use plan-a-feature. Does not create or update a coding standard — use coding-standard. Does not compare two concrete artifacts for gaps — use gap-analysis. Does not assess an existing module's architecture — use architectural-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-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。

Applies the reasoning, architectural principles, and AI philosophy of Christopher Manning (natural language processing expert, Stanford University, director of Stanford AI Lab). Use this skill whenever you are discussing natural language processing, LLM architecture, AI research strategy, cognitive science, or the evolution of machine learning. Trigger this skill for questions about AGI timelines, academic vs. industry research trade-offs, linguistic structure in neural networks, modularity in AI design, or evaluating true intelligence versus mere memorization. Channel his pragmatic focus on domain science, adaptability, and competing on ideas rather than raw compute.

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。

Applies the reasoning style of Daphne Koller (machine learning pioneer, co-founder of Coursera, founder and CEO of Insitro). Use this skill whenever you encounter problems involving AI and machine learning in biology, drug discovery, interdisciplinary collaboration, data generation vs. data mining, or transitioning from academia to industry. Trigger this skill when advising on career trade-offs, building cross-functional teams (especially bridging engineers and domain experts), designing data pipelines, evaluating causality vs. correlation, or applying AI to physical systems ('where bits meet atoms'). Channel her focus on fit-for-purpose data, pragmatism, and disproportionate leverage.

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。

Think and work like an expert AI Researcher. Use when a task calls for AI Researcher judgment. Reasons from data generating processes, inductive biases, and compute-data-algorithm trade-offs through train/val/test discipline, seed sweeps, ablation ladders, and standards like NeurIPS reproducibility checklists, model cards, and lm-eval-harness, while treating data leakage (Kapoor & Narayanan taxonomy), benchmark contamination, spurious correlations, and reward-model overoptimization as first-class failure modes.

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。

Think and work like an expert Agroecologist. Use when a task calls for Agroecologist judgment. Reasons from socio-ecological farm systems, functional diversity, soil-biology-mediated fertility, and yield-service trade-offs through mother-baby and mixed-model trials, N/P/C mass balances, PLFA/amplicon and pollinator surveys, and NDVI/FRAGSTATS landscape analysis, while treating edge-effect and plot-size artifacts, weather-year confounding, surface-only soil carbon, and ignored labor/tenure adoption constraints as first-class failure modes.

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。

Grounded in first principles, rigorously examine and refine a user's plan, task, decision, goal, strategy, proposal, or idea through structured, progressively deeper questioning, in order to bridge the gap between the User and the Agent. Use when the user explicitly requests grilling, challenge, pressure-testing, cross-examination, red-team review, pre-mortem analysis, or a decision audit. The goal is to uncover unclear objectives, hidden assumptions, contradictions, weak evidence, missing information, overlooked constraints, dependencies, risks, trade-offs, failure modes, and misalignment between intended outcomes and likely real-world results. Begin by establishing a shared understanding of the user's actual intent, goals, constraints, and success criteria. Ask focused, high-leverage questions rather than broad or repetitive ones. Adapt each question based on previous answers, probing deeper where uncertainty, unsupported assumptions, or strategic weaknesses remain. Regularly summarize the current understanding of the user's intent and position to confirm alignment, expose misunderstandings, and refine the problem or goal definition. Distinguish facts, assumptions, hypotheses, and unknowns. Challenge reasoning rigorously while remaining constructive, respectful, and solution-oriented. Continue until the reasoning is internally coherent, evidence-aware, constraint-conscious, risk-assessed, and translated into a clearer, more actionable goal, decision, or plan. Ultimately, achieving the super-alignment.

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 and interpret PCA, t-SNE, UMAP, and PHATE plots for high-dimensional omics data with rigor about which method preserves what (variance, local structure, manifold, transitions), hyperparameter sensitivity, and the well-documented limits of 2D embeddings. Covers PCA biplot/scree/loadings, t-SNE PCA initialization (Kobak-Berens 2019), UMAP n_neighbors/min_dist trade-offs, and the Chari-Pachter 2023 critique. Use when visualizing high-dimensional data — bulk PCA, single-cell embeddings, multi-omics integration projections.

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。

Align preprocessed CLIP-seq reads (eCLIP, iCLIP, iCLIP2, PAR-CLIP) to genome with STAR or bowtie2 using crosslink-preserving parameters, choosing between unique-mapper-only and multi-mapper-aware alignment for repeat-binding RBPs, deciding STAR vs HISAT2 memory trade-offs, and applying ENCODE-compatible filters. Use when turning preprocessed CLIP FASTQ into a deduplicated, MAPQ-filtered BAM ready for peak calling or crosslink-site detection.

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。

Binder design tool selection and workflow routing guidance. Use this skill when: (1) Deciding between BoltzGen, BindCraft, or RFdiffusion, (2) Planning a binder design campaign, (3) Understanding trade-offs between different approaches, (4) Selecting tools for specific target types. For specific tool parameters, use the individual tool skills (boltzgen, bindcraft, rfdiffusion, etc.).

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。

Guidance for choosing the right protein binder design tool. Use this skill when: (1) Deciding between BoltzGen, BindCraft, or RFdiffusion, (2) Planning a binder design campaign, (3) Understanding trade-offs between different approaches, (4) Selecting tools for specific target types. For specific tool parameters, use the individual tool skills (boltzgen, bindcraft, rfdiffusion, etc.).

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。

Determine technologies needed to build the product, making build/buy/integrate decisions during PRD v0.5 Red Team Review. Handles both greenfield and brownfield contexts. Triggers on requests to select tech stack, evaluate technologies, make build vs. buy decisions, discover existing assets, or when user asks "what technologies?", "select tech stack", "build or buy?", "what do we reuse?", "existing stack", "technical decisions", "what tools do we need?", "evaluate solutions". Consumes FEA- (features), SCR- (screens), RISK- (constraints). Outputs TECH- entries with decisions, rationale, and trade-offs. Feeds v0.6 Architecture Design.

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。

Define a set of actionable design principles that guide decision-making and resolve trade-offs.

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。

Expert in feature prioritization - the art and science of deciding what to build and in what order. Covers prioritization frameworks, roadmap planning, stakeholder management, and the trade-offs between different approaches. Knows that prioritization is about saying no, and how to make those decisions defensible. Use when "prioritization, roadmap, what to build, feature request, backlog, scope, trade-off, " mentioned.

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。

Technical decision-making frameworks - trade-off evaluation, reversibility analysis, and second-order thinking for better engineering choicesUse when "should we, which is better, trade-off, decision, choose between, versus, pros and cons, what if we, is it worth, evaluate options, decisions, trade-offs, architecture, adr, reversibility, strategy, planning, risk" mentioned.

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。