「compare」の検索結果

Evaluate any agent skill against a merged framework — Anthropic's Claude Code best practices plus Matt Pocock's writing-great-skills methodology — across 4 axes (Trigger, Structure, Steering, Pruning). Produces an evidence-cited scorecard (0–100), a weighted overall score, and diagnosed failure modes with prioritized fixes. Use when the user asks to evaluate, rate, or audit a skill ("evaluate this skill", "skill scorecard", "review SKILL.md"), or to compare two skills.

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 competitor analysis. Tear apart a specific competitor or compare multiple competitors. Use when the user names a competitor or asks "who else is doing this?"

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。

Used to invoke the PXMeter tool for rigorous quality assessment of biomolecular structure prediction models (e.g., proteins, nucleic acids, small molecules). This skill covers single-sample CIF evaluations and large-scale dataset benchmarks, providing rich result parsing support. Trigger this skill when the user asks to "run PXMeter", "compare PDB/CIF evaluation results of different tools", "check benchmark scores", or asks "how accurate is the structure generated by the 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。

Explain all costs in human terms. Always compare with real-world equivalents. Recommend cheapest that works.

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。

How the Strategist works with the user to turn their own trading idea into explicit rules, backtest it honestly on Hyperliquid candle and funding history, and paper-trade it on testnet through the desk lifecycle. Method only - the desk ships no strategies and makes no return claims. Use when the user wants to design, test, compare or paper-trade 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。

This skill should be used before answering "does Genesis have X", "does Genesis lack X", auditing Genesis capabilities, comparing Genesis to an external system, or reviewing/summarizing the architecture. It routes to the canonical judgment-layer subsystem map so audits start from the map, not from a cold grep. Also fires after changing a subsystem's capabilities, to keep the map current.

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 Blender models from supplied reference sheets, branding templates, texture atlases, orthographic front/side/back/top views, or mascot/logo art where visual fidelity to the source is more important than a plausible generated object. Use when the user says the model must match a template, wireframe, texture pack, character sheet, mascot sheet, or brand asset exactly; also use after feedback like "does not look like the reference", "fit the texture 1:1", "wrong number of visible parts", or "compare against the template". Requires Blender MCP plus local Python with Pillow/OpenCV/numpy; pairs with blender-uv-texturing, wireframe-to-3d, blender-modeling, blender-materials, and blender-export.

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 sequence where students compare AI's handling of the same question across disciplines, developing a mental model of where AI is reliable vs. distorting based on knowledge type.

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 students' capacity to compare accounts across multiple historical sources — identifying agreements, contradictions, and gaps. Use when students treat individual documents as complete answers rather than partial perspectives.

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。

Find, evaluate and install a ForgeCat profile. Use when the user wants to browse the registry, compare profiles, install one into a project or a home-target agent, or when an install is refused.

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。

Compares two or more band-tagged frameworks and produces a framework-neutral topic matrix showing coverage and gaps across all inputs, plus an optional reference-centric PLC crosswalk document when a reference framework is supplied.

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。

When the user wants to audit or optimize an App Store or Google Play listing. Also use when the user mentions 'ASO audit,' 'app store optimization,' 'optimize my app listing,' 'improve app visibility,' 'app store ranking,' 'audit my listing,' 'why aren't people downloading my app,' 'improve my app conversion,' 'keyword optimization for app,' or 'compare my app to competitors.' Use when the user shares an App Store or Google Play URL and wants to improve 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。

When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'battle card,' or 'competitor teardown.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement.

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 the evals of a BMad skill through the agent harness the user works in and reports what they show: baseline against the bare model, variant against a stripped or prior version, quality against a rubric, and trigger accuracy of the description with an optional optimization loop. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, test the triggers of, grade, or compare versions of a skill, or when the bmad-toolsmith skill asks for an eval of a skill it built.

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, preview, implement, and assess mini-program interfaces against an approved prototype, screenshot, visual reference, design system, or bounded UI request while preserving product semantics and existing accepted behavior. Use when users ask to reproduce a mini-program screen, refine visual hierarchy, adapt layouts across device sizes, handle safe areas or keyboards, inspect touch targets, scrolling, media, or gesture conflicts, compare an implementation with a reference, or prepare a device-verification matrix. Separates proposed visual previews, user approval, source integration, local checks, and real-device evidence; never invents product functionality for visual completeness or claims device validation without device-specific proof.

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。

Multi-source research with citations using You.com. Use for questions that need several sources compared and synthesized, such as library or framework comparisons, tool and vendor evaluations, market research, or deep-dive reports. Routes between a cost-conscious agentic search loop and the one-shot `you-research` MCP tool.

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 user asks for a literature review, academic deep dive, research report, state-of-the-art survey, topic scoping, comparative analysis of methods/papers, grant background, or any request that needs multi-source scholarly evidence with citations. Also trigger proactively when a user question clearly requires academic grounding (e.g. "what's known about X", "compare approach A vs B in the literature", "summarize the field of Y"). Runs an 8-phase (Phase 0..7), script-driven research workflow across 7 federated sources (OpenAlex, arXiv, Crossref, PubMed, DBLP, bioRxiv, Exa) with optional Semantic Scholar / Brave MCP enrichment, with deduplication, transparent ranking, dual-backend citation chasing (OpenAlex + Semantic Scholar), self-critique, and structured report output with verifiable citations.

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 an open-source project's growth channels, key content, and stage-by-stage attribution from GitHub history and public web evidence. Use this skill when asked to research GitHub star growth, identify launch and amplification channels, explain viral milestones, find representative posts or videos, compare Product Hunt/Show HN/Reddit/KOL impact, or produce an evidence-backed OSS growth attribution report.

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 comparing two or more code implementations against a spec or requirements doc. Triggers on "which repo is better", "compare these implementations", "evaluate both solutions", "rank these codebases", or "judge which approach wins". Also covers choosing between competing PRs or vendor submissions solving the same problem. Does NOT review a single codebase for quality — use code review skills instead. Does NOT evaluate strategy docs — use strategy-review. Requires a spec file and 2+ repo paths.

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。

Entity-aware code change analysis using the pi-sem tools. Use when the user asks what changed, wants blast radius or affected tests, needs focused context for a function/class, wants review help on a commit/branch/PR, or asks to compare semantic diff with raw git diff. Prefer sem_context and sem_impact; use sem_diff selectively for summaries and reviews.

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。

Debt payoff strategy generator. Compares avalanche (highest interest first) vs snowball (smallest balance first) methods, calculates payoff timelines and total interest saved, and recommends optimal payment allocation across multiple debts. Includes credit card consolidation and refinancing analysis. Use when the user says "/finance debt", "pay off my debt", "snowball or avalanche", "consolidation", or asks for any debt 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。

Analyzes and compares health insurance plans (individual vs group), calculates costs, verifies networks, and generates formatted comparison reports for decision-making

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。

US Insurance Specialist for life, disability, long-term care, and annuity planning. Conducts needs analysis, compares policy types (term, whole life, universal, variable), explains underwriting classes, recommends benefit amounts and riders, analyzes disability income protection (own occupation vs any occupation), evaluates long-term care costs and hybrid policies, and structures annuities (immediate, deferred, fixed, variable) for retirement income. Use for insurance needs calculations, policy comparisons, or state insurance regulation compliance.

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。

Processes insurance renewal documentation for brokers and underwriters. Extracts policy details, compares renewal terms against expiring policies, identifies coverage gaps, and generates renewal summaries with premium comparisons and recommendation narratives.

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。