「evidence」の検索結果

Review a GitHub security advisory and safely update .github/aw/compat.json with evidence-backed version enforcement.

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 agentic workflow changes for correctness, security posture, and optimization opportunities with compile, validation, and audit evidence.

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 and verify a deterministic operational-value grader for any GitHub Agentic Workflow. Use when reasoning from workflow goals to measurable downstream outcomes, defining repository evidence, choosing outcome metrics, or creating an operational-value evaluator. Usage: /operational-value-designer OWNER/REPO WORKFLOW-NAME.

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, verify, and synthesize scientific literature — from "what's the seminal paper for X" through full multi-source reviews. Covers grounding claims in real retrieved sources, avoiding fabricated citations, handling retractions, and calibrating confidence to evidence strength.

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。

Agent D4 - Measurement Instrument Developer - Scale construction and psychometric validation. Covers item development, validity evidence, and reliability testing for social science research.

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。

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題.

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。

中英双语学术降 AIGC / bilingual academic de-AIGC skill. Removes AI-generated writing signatures from empirical papers in economics, management, and the social sciences — in both English and Chinese. Covers Turnitin AI, GPTZero, Originality.ai on the English side and 知网 AMLC, 万方, 维普 on the Chinese side. Uses a six-step loop (intake → audit → claim-evidence check → differentiated rewrite → five-dimension self-score → cold-reader recheck) with two pattern libraries (22 English + 17 Chinese patterns), section-by-section strategies for empirical papers, and hard protections that keep every number, coefficient, and citation intact. Since 2026-08 it also carries a provenance layer (去水印): deterministic, CJK-safe cleaning of invisible-character carriers and file metadata (docx / png / jpg / svg / pdf, incl. C2PA), an honest account of Claude's statistical text watermark, and an author "ownership pass" — it never claims a text is watermark-free.

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 research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific claims.

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 or de-slop concrete changes in ccch1mneyyy/dsh-TUI at maintainer level: PR numbers or URLs, branches, commit ranges, patch files, staged or unstaged worktrees, and scoped repository-hygiene requests. Use for evidence-first correctness, contract, repository-rule, process, and behavior-preserving cleanup review, including debug residue, dead or duplicate code, speculative abstractions, stale comments or tests, and unrelated diff churn. Do not use for abstract designs with no concrete repository artifact; use audit for repository-wide assessments and vuln-check for security-only checks.

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。

Write a blameless incident postmortem under postmortems/ following the Google SRE shape — evidence-based timeline, trigger vs root cause vs symptom, contributing factors, what went well, and owned+dated+verifiable action items. Read when asked to write a postmortem, do an incident review, run a root cause analysis, write up the outage, retro on the outage, or when the user says we had an incident and wants it documented. Do NOT read to frame a proposal (use frame-a-proposal), write a spec (use write-a-spec), record a decision (use record-a-decision), or review a design (use review-a-design) — a postmortem documents an incident that already happened, it does not propose, specify, decide, or critique future 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。

Investigate a topic against preserved sources and write a draft-status research article under `research/` in a Knowledge Base project (the `knowledge-base` starter pack). Read when asked to research a topic, compare options, synthesize sources, gather evidence, or extend an existing research doc. Carries the full procedure: scan existing coverage, agree a research rubric, capture every source verbatim before analyzing, write the article incrementally so a crash never loses work, cite every claim, and link it back into the graph. Does not promote findings to canonical knowledge — that is the sibling `consolidate-notes` skill, after a decision lands.

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。

Promote existing research into a stable-status canonical article under `articles/` in a Knowledge Base project (the `knowledge-base` starter pack). Read when a decision has actually been made and the team wants the source-of-truth written down, or when asked to consolidate, canonicalize, promote research, or supersede an older article. Carries the decision-confirmation gate, the `supersedes:` chain that keeps the evidence trail intact, and the canonical voice. Does not conduct new research — that is the sibling `research-with-sources` 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。

Reviews whether a design is SOUND — solving the right problem, derived from its stated goals and constraints — and emits ranked, evidence-backed findings, not edits. Read when asked to 'review this design', 'is this design sound', 'pressure-test this proposal', 'do a design review', 'does this solve the right problem', 'poke holes in this spec', 'should we build this', or to critique a proposal / spec / ADR / architecture or product decision. Do NOT read when the user wants to AUTHOR one of these — routing a new proposal is frame-a-proposal, a spec is write-a-spec, a decision record is record-a-decision, a postmortem is write-a-postmortem. Do NOT read for code review of a diff, or to fact-check individual claims (that is a correctness pass, a different job).

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。

Inspects Observal traces, sessions, rankings, feedback, telemetry health, logs, and Agent insight reports. Use when the user wants operational evidence, current activity, telemetry diagnosis, ratings, report generation, regression analysis, or recommendations grounded in Agent usage.

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。

Plug-in vision for text-only models. Hard rule: when a file path or URL with an image extension (.png, .jpg, .jpeg, .webp, .gif, .heic, .heif) appears anywhere in the conversation (typed by the user, injected as a `[Image: source: <path>]` line, or inside a tag) and you cannot see that image's content, run this skill on it before any other approach: no self-built OCR, no PIL, no tesseract. Also triggers on pasted-image placeholders such as `[Image #1]` and `[Unsupported Image]`. If you can actually see the image, do not use this skill. When unsure, run `modlens guard` before the first read of a session: a deny verdict means the active model has native vision and must read the image itself. Runs the modlens CLI to convert the image into structured JSON evidence: every word transcribed, layout regions, semantics, visual clues. Also use when the user asks how to install, configure, or switch modlens providers (Gemini API key, OpenAI-compatible endpoints, Claude API or Claude Code CLI).

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 system architecture, simplify boundaries, or compare interface designs from repository evidence

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。

Examine what a file claims about itself and what it actually contains — powered by Apache Tika. True content-based type detection (extensions lie), provenance claims (authors, dates, creating application), revision and tamper signals (PDF incremental updates, tracked changes, hidden slides, zip integrity), hidden and embedded content (attachments, macros), risk indicators (PDF JavaScript actions, encryption), and content digests. Evidence gathering, not verdicts: Tika reports what the file asserts and what parsing observed; it does not attribute authorship or validate signatures. Use for triaging suspicious files, provenance questions, e-discovery-style review, or "is this file what it claims to be."

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。

Research technology and advanced-manufacturing investments using Serenity-inspired supply-chain bottleneck analysis. Use for theme scans, company thesis challenges, candidate comparisons, or learning this method. Prioritize A-shares unless another market is requested. Return research priorities, dated evidence, profit implications, and conditions that would change the judgment.

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 to implement ONE microsoft/apm issue already selected by autopilot-issue-delivery-scheduler. Queue signal is `status/accepted` or a named bounded accept; that is not permission. Requires fresh human-scope evidence from scripts/governance before any mutate. May reproduce a bug, implement the accepted change, and open a fix PR. Not a queue manager and not a triage scheduler. Works in the scheduler's session, a child session, Cloud Agent, Remote Agent, or Agentic Workflow.

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 to verify CLAIM-LEVEL grounding of a documentation page (or set of pages) against the source code. Activate when you have specific pages to check for factual accuracy -- not when sweeping a whole corpus (use docs-corpus-audit for that) and not when triaging a PR diff (use docs-sync for that). Trigger nouns: "is this doc accurate", "verify the page against the code", "fact-check this section", "any claims that drifted from source", "fact-checking", "grounding audit", "drift hunt", "claim verification". Returns per-claim verdicts (GROUNDED | PARTIAL | CONTRADICTED | UNSUPPORTED) with file:line evidence citations. Catches paragraph-level inaccuracies that page-level audit averages over -- e.g. a paragraph with 5 claims where 4 are grounded and 1 is fabricated. Does NOT modify files (returns advisory only); does NOT re-architect the docs; does NOT triage PRs.

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 to write the PR description (PR body) for any pull request opened against microsoft/apm. Produces one self-sufficient GitHub-Flavored Markdown artifact: TL;DR, Problem (WHY), Approach (WHAT), Implementation (HOW), 1-3 validated mermaid diagrams, explicit trade-offs, validation evidence, and a How-to-test section -- with every WHY-claim backed by a verbatim quote from PROSE or Agent Skills. Activate when the user asks to "write a PR description", "draft a PR body", "open a PR", "fill in the PR template", or any equivalent.

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。

Write or refine Chinese technical notes and articles in a concise, evidence-led voice. Use for substantive drafting or rewriting, not every Chinese reply.

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。

Automates Apple-platform apps (iOS, tvOS, macOS) and Android devices. Use when navigating apps, taking snapshots/screenshots, tapping, typing, scrolling, extracting UI info, collecting logs/network/perf evidence, or planning agent-device CLI commands.

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。

Opt-in evidence-first causal diagnosis for bugs, browser or app/device failures, flaky behavior, and performance regressions. Activate only when the user explicitly invokes `$diagnose` or explicitly asks to use the named diagnose skill. Do not activate merely because the user mentions a bug, asks why something failed, requests debugging or a fix, or describes unexpected behavior. Once explicitly invoked, locate likely causes, instrument relevant boundaries with extensive structured logging, reproduce the issue, analyze the collected logs, rank causes with confidence scores, and pursue 100% operational confidence while probes can increase confidence.

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。