「claim」の検索結果

Biochemical metabolism of macronutrients and key micronutrients — digestion, absorption, transport, utilization, and excretion — with emphasis on the pathways that matter for dietary-guideline debates (insulin response, lipoprotein metabolism, one-carbon metabolism, iron homeostasis). Use when a question asks what happens biochemically to a food after it is eaten, or when a claim about "metabolic effect" needs to be tested against mechanism.

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。

Proof writing and verification techniques for mathematical reasoning. Covers 13 proof strategies with canonical worked examples — direct, contrapositive, contradiction, cases, WLOG, vacuous/trivial, biconditional, counterexample, existence (constructive and non-constructive), uniqueness, induction (weak, strong, structural), pigeonhole/double-counting, and diagonal argument/invariants. Use when writing, verifying, or selecting proof strategies for any mathematical claim.

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。

Traditional Chinese internal arts — tai chi chuan and qigong — as transmitted by classical lineages (Chen, Yang, Wu, Wu/Hao, Sun for tai chi; Ba Duan Jin, Yi Jin Jing, Liu Zi Jue, Wu Qin Xi, and other named sets for qigong) with an emphasis on alignment, rooted stance, breath-posture-mind coordination (the three harmonies), and the traditional lineage voice that Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming's YMAA line preserves. Also covers the safety boundary between traditional practice and clinical "medical qigong" claims. Use for queries about tai chi form learning, qigong set selection, internal-arts pedagogy, and the practical question of where to start.

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。

Climate physics, forcing, feedback, and attribution. Covers the greenhouse effect and radiative forcing, climate sensitivity, fast and slow feedbacks, the paleoclimate record, detection and attribution science, regional climate impacts, and the distinction between weather, climate variability, and forced climate change. Use when reasoning about global warming mechanisms, interpreting temperature or CO2 records, evaluating attribution claims for extreme events, or distinguishing signal from natural variability.

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。

Evaluating online information for credibility, accuracy, and context. Covers the SIFT method (Stop, Investigate, Find, Trace), lateral reading, reverse image search, primary source verification, and common misinformation tactics. Use when assessing the trustworthiness of a web page, article, video, social media post, or any digital claim before relying on it or sharing 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。

A/B testing, randomization, sample size calculation, confounding control, and causal inference for data science. Covers the full experimental lifecycle from hypothesis formulation through power analysis, randomization strategies, blocking, factorial designs, sequential testing, and the potential outcomes framework for causal claims. Use when designing experiments, planning A/B tests, calculating sample sizes, or reasoning about causation from data.

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。

Evaluating the quality, provenance, and relevance of evidence that supports or undermines a claim. Covers source credibility, sampling quality, study design, levels of evidence (anecdote to meta-analysis), base rate integration, distinguishing primary from secondary sources, and calibrating belief to evidence strength. Use when the question is not whether an argument is valid but whether its premises are actually supported by the available data.

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。

Adversarial spec-compliance PR review — cross-references diffs against approved specs, verifies runtime claims against source, detects competing PRs, audits scope/convention compliance. Use before merging.

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。

Triage a GitHub issue filed against skillsaw — classify it (bug, feature, docs, question, other), verify its claims against the codebase, enrich it with missing details, and post one structured triage comment. Use when triaging and labeling incoming issues, not to fix them.

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。

Integrate multiple source findings into an attributed synthesis or comparison. Use for combine these summaries, synthesize results, merge findings or multi-source analysis. Preserve claim-level provenance, coverage, qualifiers, conflicts and uncertainty rather than repeatedly compressing narrative summaries.

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 in a repository that uses bd or Beads for durable project task tracking, issue dependencies, blocker management, multi-session handoff, or shared work memory. Trigger when the user asks to find ready work, claim or close tasks, create follow-up work, inspect blockers, recover project context, or choose between local planning and persistent project tracking.

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 primary outcome is creating publishable source-attributed content from URLs or supplied material, including research summaries, articles, briefs, and posts whose factual claims and quotations need reader-visible, 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。

Analyze and improve processes or systems using an explicit semantic model, adaptive instruction resolution, evidence-driven change, and claim-level validation. Use when reviewing process quality, resolving ambiguity or gaps, deciding how much procedural detail is necessary, or validating consequential process 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。

Scientific validation protocol for verifying fixes work through observation, not assumption. Use when claiming a bug fix, code change, refactoring, or implementation is complete — enforces reproduce-broken-state then define-success-criteria then apply-fix then verify-outcome. Success means observing intended behavior, not absence of errors.

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。

Audit documentation claims against implementation and authoritative repository evidence. Use when checking whether README, architecture, configuration, API, usage, or feature documentation is stale, incomplete, contradicted by code, missing implemented behavior, or inconsistent with a normative contract.

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 iterate on the SDLC Layer Separation Architecture implementation. Runs validation checks (cross-references, doc completeness, layer metadata, integration points), produces a findings report, and supports iterative fixes. Use when validating first-pass implementation, before claiming layer work is complete, or when improving layer docs/schema.

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。

Validate and iterate on the SDLC Layer Separation Architecture implementation across the check categories defined in its Evaluation Checklist — cross-references, doc completeness, knowledge-explorer layer filters, research entry metadata, integration points, and plan consistency. Produces a structured findings report and optionally applies safe fixes. Use when validating a first-pass implementation, before claiming layer work complete, auditing layer docs or schema, or running --dry-run to preview findings without changes.

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。

An AI analyst for buying B2B software. Investigates what vendors claim, checks the evidence, surfaces contradictions and unanswered questions, and produces a shareable Decision Brief with the questions to ask before you buy. Quick Eval by default; Deep Eval on request. Use when asked to evaluate, compare, vet, or research B2B software vendors.

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 raw captures (dictated braindumps in a deliverable's inbox/, or recent macwhspr dictation-log entries) into proposed planning-wiki changes, shown as one unified diff. Classifies each statement as a decision, evidence claim, question, task, or dropped item, traces it to its capture paragraph, tags unconfirmed names, numbers, and citations UNRESOLVED, and writes decisions only with the author's assent. Edits only the planning wiki, never source files. Use when asked to intake, absorb notes, or process the inbox, or after dictating notes from a talk, meeting, or reading session.

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。

Interviews a researcher in rounds until an idea, design, or draft has no unexamined decision — numbered questions, each with why it matters and a recommended answer, facts looked up rather than asked, and settled decisions written to a file. Stages are idea (topic or hunch to a falsifiable question and contribution claim), design (estimand, identification, sample and power, measurement, analysis plan, pre-registration, venue), and defend (reviewer objections to a finished design or draft). Use when the user says "grill me", asks to stress-test or poke holes in an idea, design, or plan, asks what they are assuming, or brings an idea that is not yet a design. --plan grills software or process 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。

Runs several language models as independent coders on one labeling or discovery task and treats disagreement as data. Covers diverse panel assembly, independent voting, consensus rules, Cohen’s and Fleiss kappa, Krippendorff’s alpha, correlated-error limits on validity claims, human validation, and reporting. Use when the user asks about a council, panel, ensemble, or jury of models, how to combine model labels, or what kappa or alpha to report for model coders. Single-model codebook and validation work goes to text-classification, per-item confidence to llm-calibration-logprobs.

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 competing products and turn the market gap into credible positioning, messaging angles, and social campaign claims. Use when comparing competitors, writing alternative pages, sharpening product positioning, or planning campaigns against a category narrative.

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。

Drafts or audits a scientific paper’s introduction and framing — the real-world "why", an evidence audit, the funnel from theory to a falsifiable if-then with a named estimand, bridges across experiments, and a contribution list matched to the design. Use when the user asks to write, restructure, or critique an introduction, motivate or frame a paper, repair a gap-in-the-literature opening, sharpen or calibrate a contribution claim, or connect experiments into one argument. Sentence-level flow and wording are out of 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。

Drafts a referee report for a journal editor. Produces a recommendation, claim-and-design summary, three to six decision-driving concerns, additional concerns, and a revision plan through five parallel adversarial finders, Breaker, Butcher, Shredder, Void, Situator, a Blue Team error filter, Chief Reviewer synthesis, Tone Guard legal pass, and optional confidential editor note. Use when the user has been asked to referee a manuscript. Self-audits go to paper-review-lite or presubmit, and author responses go to referee-response.

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。