「uat」の検索結果

Evaluate agent behavior with versioned cases and explicit verifiers. Use when comparing agent or prompt changes, reproducing failures, or running agent regression tests.

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 summarizing agent evaluations where autonomous, assisted, failed, timed-out, or invalid outcomes must remain distinct and comparable.

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 to "design an early access program", "set up a waitlist and beta stages", or "define beta graduation criteria"; produces a waitlist→concept→alpha→beta→GA stage ladder with per-stage purpose and opt-in semantics, quantified graduation criteria per stage (labeled Estimated), a cohort-gating and invite-throttling plan, tester recruitment with launch-day social-proof prep, a feedback-loop spec where every status change notifies its subscribers, and a referral-loop mechanism spec (invite codes, anti-abuse). Not for waitlist acquisition strategy or the capture-flow spec — use list-growth-designer; not for the canonical stage record — use launch-registry. waitlist/内测阶梯/抢先体验/毕业标准/反馈闭环

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。

Marketing analytics and data-driven optimization for B2B SaaS campaigns. Use this skill when analyzing marketing performance, optimizing conversion rates, running A/B tests, conducting customer research, creating marketing dashboards, building attribution models, analyzing funnel metrics, or storytelling with data. Also triggers on: marketing ops, performance analytics, CRO, A/B testing, data storytelling, customer insights, tracking plan, event taxonomy, UTM taxonomy, GA4 audit, consent mode, instrumentation contract, sample size calculation, minimum detectable effect, test duration, not enough traffic to A/B test, statistical significance, Bayesian vs frequentist, sample ratio mismatch, experiment feasibility, martech stack, marketing tech stack audit, tool consolidation, build vs buy, vendor evaluation, shadow IT tools, ESP/CRM/platform migration, switching cost, cutover plan, suppression list migration, data portability, customer interviews, survey design, sampling frame, non-response bias, how many people should I interview, thematic saturation, voice of customer, jobs-to-be-done, buyer persona research, is this finding real, data enrichment, which enrichment provider should we buy, waterfall enrichment, contact data quality, match rate, our list data is bad, email verification, catch-all domain, accept-all, bounce rate from bad data, B2B data decay, how often should we re-verify contacts, ZoomInfo vs Apollo vs Clearbit evaluation, cost per usable record, where did this list come from, GDPR Article 14 notice, purchased list compliance, suppression screening, TAM list building, demand planning, marketing plan, how many leads do we need, what pipeline target should marketing carry, funnel model, top-down vs bottom-up plan, plan of record, annual marketing planning, quarterly planning, pipeline coverage we have to create, sales cycle lag, our leads cannot close this quarter, carry-in pipeline, scenario planning, conservative moderate aggressive forecast, stretch target, reforecast, re-forecast triggers, assumption register, capacity ceiling, addressable audience ceiling, marginal cost per lead, blended CPL is wrong, we missed plan and nobody knows why.

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 and improve an existing Claude Code skill using explicit success criteria and small controlled changes. Use when the user asks to optimize a skill, reduce over-triggering or under-triggering, improve reliability, tighten instructions, or add evals for a skill. Also trigger on "スキルを改善して", "スキルを最適化して", "スキルの品質を確認して".

Marp形式プレゼンテーションの専門レビュー・評価・改善スキル。 10軸スコアリング（100点満点）で品質を定量評価し、具体的な改善コード付きで提案する。 Use when the user asks to: - Review, evaluate, or critique a Marp presentation / プレゼンをレビュー / 評価 / 添削 - Improve, polish, or upgrade existing slides / スライドを改善 / ブラッシュアップ - Check slide quality, score slides, or audit a deck / スライドの品質チェック / 採点 - "このプレゼンどう？" "スライドを見てほしい" "プレゼン資料のフィードバック" Reads .md files with Marp frontmatter, scores across 10 dimensions, and outputs a detailed review report with concrete before/after code improvements. Works as a companion to the marp-slides skill (generation → review → improvement cycle).

Evaluate everything the PA agent manages — tasks, skills, PA network health, billing, calendar connections, and memory quality. Use when: owner asks for an evaluation, wants to know what's working and what isn't, or requests a performance report. Combines supervisor status with quality scoring.

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 working with Azure Policy Deep — azure Policy deep compliance and governance management. Covers policy definitions, initiatives, assignments, compliance evaluation, exemptions, remediation tasks, custom policies, and regulatory compliance. Use when managing Azure governance at scale, reviewing compliance states, creating custom policies, or troubleshooting policy evaluation 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。

Use when working with Kubescape — kubescape Kubernetes security posture analysis. Covers NSA/CISA framework assessment, MITRE ATT&CK mapping, CIS Kubernetes benchmarks, workload scanning, RBAC analysis, and network policy evaluation. Use when assessing Kubernetes cluster security, evaluating compliance frameworks, or analyzing workload configurations.

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。

Autonomously improve a real artifact (code, training recipe, agent harness, data pipeline, prompt) against an objective and an evaluator, using Hypothesis Tree Refinement (HTR) from the Arbor paper. Use this whenever someone wants to iteratively optimize something over many experiments without overfitting — e.g. "get my model's eval score up", "improve this agent/harness", "tune this pipeline", "beat the baseline on this benchmark", "run a search over approaches and keep the best", "do an MLE-bench / Kaggle-style optimization", or any long-horizon "make this artifact better and don't just memorize the dev set" task. Trigger it even when the user doesn't say "Arbor" or "hypothesis tree" but describes repeated experiment-and-evaluate loops, branching exploration of competing ideas, or worries about a dev/test gap. Runs Claude itself as the coordinator with subagent executors in isolated git worktrees; for the standalone `arbor` CLI tool see references/arbor-upstream.md.

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。

NVIDIA RAG Blueprint evaluation guidance for measuring retrieval and answer quality with stable datasets, baselines, and reproducible scoring workflows.

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 and improve AI-generated output with explicit rubrics, reflection loops, and stop conditions. Use when building self-critique workflows, evaluator-optimizer pipelines, or acceptance gates for code, docs, analysis, or 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。

Detects MSBuild projects with conflicting OutputPath or IntermediateOutputPath. Only activate in MSBuild/.NET build context. USE FOR: builds failing with 'Cannot create a file when that file already exists', 'The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process', intermittent build failures that succeed on retry, missing outputs in multi-project builds, multi-targeting builds where project.assets.json conflicts. Diagnoses when multiple projects or TFMs write to the same bin/obj directories due to shared OutputPath, missing AppendTargetFrameworkToOutputPath, or extra global properties like PublishReadyToRun creating redundant evaluations. DO NOT USE FOR: file access errors unrelated to MSBuild (OS-level locking), single-project single-TFM builds, non-MSBuild build systems. INVOKES: binlog MCP server tools (overview, projects, evaluations, properties, double_writes); falls back to dotnet msbuild binlog replay + grep when the MCP is unavailable.

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。

MSBuild property definition patterns: conditional defaults, composition/concatenation, path normalization, trailing slash handling, TFM detection helpers, and property evaluation order. Only activate in MSBuild/.NET build context. USE FOR: diagnosing and fixing MSBuild property definition issues in .props or .csproj files, reviewing and fixing shared property configuration anti-patterns, fixing DefineConstants or NoWarn being overwritten instead of appended, fixing unconditional property assignments that prevent project-level overrides, fixing unquoted conditions that fail when properties are empty, fixing hardcoded paths that break cross-platform builds, setting property defaults that can be overridden, understanding property evaluation order and last-write-wins semantics. DO NOT USE FOR: props vs targets placement (use directory-build-organization), item operations (use item-management), target structure (use target-authoring), general anti-patterns (use msbuild-antipatterns), non-MSBuild build systems.

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。

6 production-ready AI engineering workflows: prompt evaluation (8-dimension scoring), context budget planning, RAG pipeline design, agent security audit (65-point checklist), eval harness building, and product sense coaching.

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。

Understand the constraints a design was built under and evaluate quality within that context. Use when reviewing work that had limited time, budget, or team size, or when assessing whether constraints were handled well.

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。

Systematic design quality evaluation. Hierarchy, type, color, space, craft, system. Use when evaluating whether a design is ready to ship, running quality audits, or setting quality standards.

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。

Break a design system into its constituent decisions and evaluate each one. Use when auditing design systems, evaluating consistency, or understanding how a product maintains quality at scale.

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 new Claude Code Agent Skills in Japanese with proper SKILL.md format, trigger design, and evaluation methods. Triggers on requests for スキル作成, 新しいスキルを作る, SKILL.md作成, Agent Skill テンプレート, スキルの書き方.

Apply critical rationalist epistemology (Popper, Deutsch) to evaluate reasoning, identify errors, and refine understanding. Use when the user explicitly requests help with reasoning - phrases like "help me think this through", "does this make sense", "any flaws in this", "what am I missing", "critique this", "is this reasoning sound", "stress test this idea", "devil's advocate", or any request to evaluate arguments, identify logical problems, or improve thinking. Also use when errors in reasoning are significant enough to materially affect the user's goals, even if not explicitly requested.

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 a 3-leg evaluation against a newly released LLM. Leg 1 is trap questions with deterministic answers, leg 2 is an agentic orchestration task with a planted failure, leg 3 is a brownfield feature build in a real repo. Use when the user wants to vibe-check, test, evaluate, or compare a new frontier model, or mentions model-bench, model vibe check, or launch-day protocol.

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 design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.

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: 'intake this repo/skill', 'evaluate external skill', 'should we adopt X', a candidate repo URL plus an adoption question, or any external skill/workflow/tool surfaces as a possible fit for Agistra. Structured front-door evaluation of external skills, workflows, and similar capability artifacts before any install, promotion, or adaptation decision. Ends in exactly one classification: Install candidate, Adapt concept, or Reject. Never install first — intake first.

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 Langfuse - the open-source LLM observability platform. Covers tracing, prompt management, evaluation, datasets, and integration with LangChain, LlamaIndex, and OpenAI. Essential for debugging, monitoring, and improving LLM applications in production. Use when: langfuse, llm observability, llm tracing, prompt management, llm 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。