「compare」の検索結果

Validate Commodore MPS-801 serial dot matrix printer behavior in EMULATORS, including SerialPrinterMPS801 classes and their MatrixPrinterEmulation and SerialPrinterPeripheralSimulation hierarchy, IEC/KERNAL-trap printer routing, device numbers, secondary addresses, PETSCII/character sets, 6x7 glyphs, double width, graphics mode, reverse field, tab and dot positioning, line/page geometry, PostScript output, and fidelity boundaries. Use when Codex reviews or edits COMMODORE MPS801 printer code, generated printer output, PostScript printer templates, C64/VIC-20/C264 serial-printer behavior, or compares implementation against .codex/docs/MPS801.pdf and historical MPS-801 sources.

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 and stress-test open-source project names, from collision checks to launch-ready decisions. Use when the user asks to name or rename a project, compare candidate names, screen GitHub or package namespace risk, verify language or mythology claims, or improve SEO/GEO clarity. Perform live web and registry research, separate brand from category descriptor, classify collisions, and return one evidence-backed recommendation.

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 work is ambiguous or has multiple viable paths; compares options, assumptions, evidence, tradeoffs, and the best next action.

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。

Discover, compare, and compose existing open-source GitHub repositories for a user's goal, using GitHub MCP for live discovery and verification plus Context7 semantic retrieval over repository code and official documentation. Use when a user asks for GitHub repo recommendations, open-source alternatives, a multi-repository solution stack, project comparison, or help choosing an implementation to adopt.

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。

Conduct reproducible web searches and decision-oriented research across official sites, search engines, news, papers, forums, social platforms, and public datasets. Use when Codex must investigate a person, organization, product, market, technical resource, reputation, career choice, or other current topic; compare candidates; verify claims; collect dated citations; distinguish facts from inference and anecdote; or write an evidence-backed research 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。

Multi-angle deep-research workflow over Ahmad's OpenMark knowledge graph (13k+ bookmarks). Use whenever Ahmad asks anything that requires more than one search to answer well — "what's the landscape of X in my saves", "do a deep dive on Y", "research X across my bookmarks", "compare what I saved about X vs Y", "give me everything on X". Also use when fast-search returned thin results and Ahmad pushed back ("dig deeper", "more results", "actually research it"). Pairs Neo4j graph search with WebFetch on top picks to bring back fresh page content. Triggers on "deep research", "dig deeper", "research", "landscape", "everything on", "thorough", "comprehensive".

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。

Generate multiple radically different interface designs for a module using parallel sub-agents. Use when user wants to design an API, explore interface options, compare module shapes, or mentions "design it twice".

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 when the user asks to "implement LLM-as-judge", "compare model outputs", "create evaluation rubrics", "mitigate evaluation bias", or mentions direct scoring, pairwise comparison, position bias, evaluation pipelines, or automated quality assessment.

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。

Diff a live page's accessibility violations against a baseline — by default compares uncommitted changes (stash-based), or pass --branch [<name>] to diff against a branch. Reports only new violations introduced, violations fixed, and pre-existing count. Use `scan` for a full audit with no diffing.

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。

Map advanced persistent threat (APT) group tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to the MITRE ATT&CK framework using the ATT&CK Navigator and attackcti Python library. The analyst queries STIX/TAXII data for group-technique associations, generates Navigator layer files for visualization, and compares defensive coverage against adversary profiles. Activates for requests involving APT TTP mapping, ATT&CK Navigator layers, threat actor profiling, or MITRE technique coverage analysis.

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。

価値概念とIT要求・活動のスコア乖離検証結果の良い点・悪い点を分析し、改善のための問いを生成

価値概念との乖離を検証

検証結果に基づいてスコア乖離検証結果を洗練・修正する

スコア乖離検証結果の検証を行う時の観点を説明する

Verify a tested web agent's real behavior from its recorded Pi or Codex session and selected screenshots before scoring. The judge prompt provides absolute artifact paths; use targeted queries to compare actual outputs, errors, and the final answer with the recorded behavior, then return only the verdict JSON. Only for ego-bench judging—never to drive a browser or rerun the agent.

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。

Analyze Codex provider rollout JSONL and ego-benchmark-harness run artifacts to identify slow or failed individual tasks, tool retries, token/cost anomalies, and differences in agent execution paths. Use when users ask to analyze a Codex session or rollout, explain why a Codex task was slow or failed, inspect a Codex provider execution trace, compare Codex runs, count function_call or tool output events, or investigate agent-home/.codex/sessions.

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。

Set up and manage a UI redesign experiment with three git worktree branches for modern minimal, bold creative, and classic refined design directions. Use when asked to run a UI redesign experiment, compare design approaches, or prototype multiple visual directions in parallel branches.

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。

Capture and compare Clawix UI performance budgets for critical flows before optimizing visible or runtime UI behavior.

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。

Load when a task asks to research, verify, compare, or look up framework/package behavior, release notes, standards, RFCs, CVEs, or unfamiliar APIs; use repository evidence first, then official docs, and not for codebase navigation alone.

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。

Throwaway design probe for logic, state models, UI variations, and affordances before production work. Use when the user wants to prototype, sanity-check a model, make something playable, compare UI directions, or explore a design before ln-spec/ln-plan/ln-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。

Turns the text of a regulatory change (new regulation, amendment, rule, guidance or standard revision) into a DRAFT impact note: what changed against the prior text where supplied, who is affected as the text scopes it, an obligations table with dates and owners to confirm, and open interpretation questions for legal. States only what the text says; the rest is UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "brief legal on this new regulation", "list what we must do by when under this amendment", "compare the new standard with the version it replaces", "turn this directive into an obligations table" or "what does this rule mean for us". Do not use for assessing existing controls against a requirement set, use controls-gap-pack instead; for gapping a policy against a standard, use policy-gap-review. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Reads two or more supplier, bid or tender responses against a requirements list and returns a DRAFT comparison pack: a requirement-by-supplier matrix, gaps per supplier, clarification questions and neutral observations, for an evaluation panel. Never scores, weights, ranks or recommends a winner; the award stays with the panel. Use when the user asks to "compare these bids", "matrix the tender responses against our requirements", "collate the RFQ replies", "show me where each supplier falls short" or "draft clarification questions for the bidders". Do not use for scoring or weighting against agreed criteria, use supplier-evaluation-matrix instead, or for writing the requirements, use rfp-requirements-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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 a business need and its constraints into a DRAFT RFP requirements pack: traced functional and non-functional requirements with priorities, mandatory gates, evaluation criteria with weights left to the business owner, and fact-seeking supplier questions. Solution-neutral; never names a supplier or product. Use when the user asks to "write the RFP requirements", "turn this business case into tender requirements", "draft the supplier questionnaire", "structure our RFQ from this brief" or "set up evaluation criteria before we go to market". Do not use for responses already received, use rfp-comparison-pack to compare them or supplier-evaluation-matrix to score them instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Pre-checks one expense claim or travel plan, line by line, against the expense or travel policy the user supplies, and returns a DRAFT precheck sheet: the policy clause matched to each line, the limit quoted as the policy states it, whether the amount sits within, at or outside that limit, missing receipts, pre-approvals or justifications, and neutral questions for the approver and the claimant, with UNKNOWN wherever the policy or the claim is silent. Use when the user asks to "check this expense claim against policy", "pre-check my travel request", "is this claim within policy", "review these expenses before I submit them", "what receipts or approvals are missing" or "prepare the approver's questions for this claim". Do not use for a purchase order log or spend extract, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; do not use to compare a policy against a standard or regulation, use policy-gap-review instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。