「toc」の検索結果

Refines broad, vague, or aspirational biomedical research objectives into clear, bounded, measurable, executable, and downstream-ready study objective statements. Always use this skill when a user has a general aim such as “explore a mechanism,” “study prognosis,” “investigate biomarkers,” or “look at treatment response,” but the objective is still too broad, non-operational, or too ambiguous to support protocol framing, design selection, analysis planning, or hypothesis design. Never assume that polished wording alone means the objective is actionable. Focus first on objective type, missing operational elements, scope discipline, and downstream-ready formulation.

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 confounder control, variable adjustment logic, and bias mitigation strategies at the protocol stage for clinical, epidemiologic, translational, observational, and biomarker studies. Always use this skill when a user needs to identify major confounders, decide which variables should or should not be adjusted for, compare matching/stratification/weighting approaches, anticipate selection or measurement bias, or pressure-test a study design before execution. Focus on bias sensing, causal structure awareness, variable-role classification, and critical design review rather than generic statistical advice.

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 internal, external, temporal, and functional validation strategies at the protocol stage for medical research studies.

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 studies for predicting treatment response or resistance in biomedical and clinical research. Always use this skill when the user needs a treatment-response or resistance prediction study blueprint rather than a prognostic biomarker protocol, diagnostic test design, causal treatment-effect estimation, or a completed manuscript. Focus on responder definition, treatment context, baseline comparability, feature integration strategy, model development logic, validation architecture, and interpretation boundaries. Do not invent response rates, cohort size, assay readiness, regimen uniformity, literature support, or validation access.

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 sample size estimation logic, power assumptions, feasibility checks, and fallback enrollment strategies for clinical and translational study protocols.

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 multiple study-route options for the same biomedical research question and recommends one primary plan, while explicitly explaining why alternative routes are secondary, premature, weaker, or dependency-heavy. Always use this skill when the user already has a reasonably defined question but is unsure which main study route should anchor the project. Focus on plan comparison, route selection, dependency awareness, and primary-plan justification rather than full protocol drafting.

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。

Converts an audited medical research gap into a complete, structured, gap-traceable study design. Always use this skill whenever a user already has one or more candidate research gaps and wants to transform them into an executable biomedical research plan rather than re-run broad topic ideation. Covers six gap-to-design patterns (evidence-completion, mechanism-resolution, cell-state/context-mapping, translation-bridge, causality-upgrade, population/stage-specific) and always outputs one recommended primary protocol, a gap-to-design dependency map, step-by-step workflow, figure plan, validation strategy, minimal executable version, publication upgrade path, and verified design-support literature rules. Never fabricate references. Preserve claim-evidence discipline and do not replace a topic-specific gap with a generic 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。

Rapidly maps the evidence landscape around a medical topic by organizing major research streams, target populations, endpoints, methods, evidence density, and thin areas. Use this skill BEFORE medical-research-gap-finder — it provides the structured landscape that makes formal gap analysis more rigorous. Do not use for formal gap identification, study design, or protocol planning directly.

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。

Clarifies a vague clinical or biomedical research idea into a structured, bounded, searchable, researchable, and testable question. Always use this skill whenever a user has an early-stage clinical or research thought, an over-broad topic, an ill-defined evidence question, or an unclear problem statement that must be translated into a question framing suitable for literature retrieval, evidence synthesis, gap analysis, study design, or downstream protocol planning. Never jump straight to answering the substantive medical question unless the user explicitly asks for that. Focus first on question framing, boundary setting, and downstream-ready formulation.

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。

Academic paper reading and research development system for biomedical researchers. Finds papers via Semantic Scholar, reads with structured notes, tracks discussion insights, and synthesizes literature into a Research Foundation Document (RFD) for downstream protocol design skills. 8 commands: /setup /feed /read /discuss /recap /update /sync /propose

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 primary aims, secondary aims, and testable hypotheses from broad biomedical research ideas. Use this skill when a user needs to convert a loose study idea into a tighter protocol-framing structure with clear aim hierarchy, hypothesis discipline, and separation between hypothesis-driven and exploratory components. Always keep aims answerable, non-overlapping, and aligned to the intended evidence type and study scope.

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。

A comprehensive auditor for any agent skill — including Manus, OpenClaw/ClawHub, Claude, LobeHub, or custom SKILL.md-based skills. Use this skill whenever a user wants to evaluate, audit, review, score, or quality-check an agent skill before publishing, updating, or deploying. Covers two hard veto gates (structural redlines + research integrity redlines), static quality scoring across 25 criteria (ISO 25010 + OpenSSF + Agent), dynamic test input generation, multi-mode execution testing, multi-layer output evaluation with five specialized category rubrics (Evidence Insight / Protocol Design / Data Analysis / Academic Writing / Other), a Research Veto that applies to all four research categories, human eval viewer generation, actionable P0/P1/P2 optimization recommendations, and automatic skill improvement that outputs a polished, production-ready SKILL.md. Also use whenever a user says "audit my skill", "evaluate my skill", "improve my skill", or wants a corrected version after 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。

Turns your protocol and analysis workflow into publication-ready Methods text. Use when writing or revising the Methods section of a biomedical manuscript, ensuring it complies with reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, TRIPOD), matches what is in the Results section, and satisfies journal-specific word limits and declarations. Also triggers on "write my methods", "revise my methods section", "how to report my statistics", "what do I need to include in methods for [study type]", or "make my methods CONSORT-compliant".

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 for creating high-quality MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers that enable LLMs to interact with external services through well-designed tools. Use when building MCP servers to integrate external APIs or services, whether in Python (FastMCP) or Node/TypeScript (MCP SDK).

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。

Fail closed on published draft XQUIC code pull requests before ready-for-review state. Use when asked to pre-review a code PR or move it out of draft; verify current base-to-head code, protocol conformance, validation coverage, adversarial bad cases, hot-path performance, and memory safety in a five-part local 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。

Verify whether a proposed XQUIC bug issue is real by checking the cited RFC or Internet-Draft mechanism against the repository's actual source behavior, tracing any root cause to current file and line evidence, and returning a fail-closed boolean gate. Use when validating an issue draft, investigating a claimed QUIC, HTTP/3, QPACK, or MoQT protocol violation, or before issue-submit may publish an issue.

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 evaluating platforms, marketplaces, and networks through a USV-style lens: network effects, defensibility, protocols, openness, and scalable distribution.

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 evaluating stocks through Duan Yongping's benfen (本分) value investing lens: good business, right price, long hold, understand what you own, and stay within your circle of competence.

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 evaluating stocks through Qiu Guolu's value-quality lens: stay within circle of competence, focus on industry leaders with structural advantages, and demand simple clear thesis before investing.

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 evaluating Hindenburg-style investigative short reports: evidence chains, promoter networks, stock promotion, related parties, disclosure failures, and catalyst-driven short 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。

Use when evaluating Peter Lynch-style growth stocks: invest in what you can understand, classify the company type, check growth runway, PEG, balance sheet, and whether the story is still improving.

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 evaluating Walter Schloss-style cigar-butt value: cheap stocks, balance sheets, diversification across many bargains, and avoiding glamorous stories.

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 evaluating growth stocks through O'Neil CAN SLIM: earnings acceleration, relative strength, institutional demand, market direction, base quality, and breakout discipline.

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 evaluating stocks through Deng Xiaofeng's cycle-and-industry lens: deep industry research, cycle position awareness, supply-demand dynamics, and buying leaders at cycle bottoms.

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。