「debate」の検索結果

Explore and debate solutions before writing code. Use when the user poses a design question, asks "how should I approach X", wants to think through options before committing, or says anything like "let's brainstorm", "what's the best way to...", "I'm not sure how to tackle this", or "should I use X or Y". Always runs before /ck:plan for novel or ambiguous features. No code is written — only: explore → clarify → spec → 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。

Use this skill when prioritizing a Salesforce backlog with the MoSCoW method (Must / Should / Could / Won't) plus an effort + value lens, deciding what fits in the next sprint or release, and using WSJF as a tie-break when MoSCoW alone produces ties. Trigger keywords: MoSCoW prioritization, must should could won't, WSJF salesforce, prioritize salesforce stories, sprint commit, backlog grooming. NOT for story writing or splitting (use admin/user-story-writing-for-salesforce). NOT for release train planning (use agents/release-train-planner). NOT for sizing/estimation method debates — this skill assumes a sizing convention is already in place.

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。

Explore and debate options with fresh documentation and research before committing. Use when facing a real decision with multiple plausible approaches — library/framework choice, architecture call, API or schema design, algorithm selection, or any communication / strategy call where being wrong has cost. Enumerates relevant research domains, looks up current docs and evidence-based methods, weighs options on correctness and elegance, resists bloat. Do NOT use for divergent ideation (brainstorm), extracting user intent (elicit), or reviewing already-written code (quality-review).

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 the medieval problem of universals, covering Platonic realism, Aristotelian moderate realism, and Ockhamist nominalism with modern analytical perspectives

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 pattern catalog for autonomous agents — ReAct, plan-and-execute, reflection, multi-agent debate, toolformer-style tool use, and when each fits. Use when choosing the control pattern for an agent task.

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 moderated imageboard for AI agents to post and debate. A place made by bots for bots to post what they are really thinking

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 a team of 50 LLM personas through a 30-round structured debate to predict market direction. Uses the Canvas Agent Swarm Service — the same shared infrastructure other skills use for smaller agent teams. Output is an influence-weighted consensus direction + trade recommendation with a transparent record of every argument, research query, and cross-examination.

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-agent collaboration bringing 2-4 perspectives into one discussion for architecture decisions and trade-off analysis. Use for 'should we X or Y', design review, or debate before deciding.

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。

Surfaces architectural friction and proposes deepening refactors (shallow to deep modules). Renders via mk:preview. NOT for debate (mk:party); NOT for plan critique (mk:plan-ceo-review).

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。

Turn a raw idea into ONE honest recommendation: interview one question at a time until confirmed, then give a verdict with trade-offs and a checklist. Not for options or debate.

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。

Turn a raw idea into ONE honest recommendation: interview one question at a time until the problem, requirements, goals, non-goals, and constraints are CONFIRMED, then deliver a single verdict — do, don't, cheaper alternatives, trade-offs, ordered checklist, success metrics. Required: the user wants exactly ONE recommendation — not options, not a debate — and their framing is open to challenge (advise may answer a different question than the one asked). Triggers on "what should I do about X", "advise me on X", "am I approaching this right", "is this the right move". Do NOT use to be interrogated with no recommendation (→ mk:grill) — advise also interviews one question at a time, but only to reach a verdict. Do NOT use when the framing is settled and only the options are open (→ mk:brainstorming). Do NOT use to decide whether something is worth building (→ mk:office-hours). Do NOT use when you want several perspectives to argue it out (→ mk:party).

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。

Implements missing-data sensitivity analyses for confirmatory clinical trials including MMRM under MAR (with Kenward-Roger correction), reference-based multiple imputation (J2R, CR, CIR, LMCF per Carpenter-Roger 2013), Permutt delta-adjustment / tipping-point analysis, pattern-mixture identifying restrictions (CCMV, NCMV, ACMV), and the Cro vs Bartlett variance debate. Use when handling missing primary or secondary endpoint data in regulatory submissions following NRC 2010 and ICH E9(R1).

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。

Prepares statistical reports for clinical trials following CONSORT 2025, SPIRIT 2025, ICH E9(R1) estimands, and FDA 2023 covariate adjustment guidance. Covers Table 1 generation, analysis populations (ITT/FAS/PP/Safety), the 5 ICH E9(R1) intercurrent-event strategies, MMRM under MAR (mmrm), reference-based MI (rbmi J2R/CR/CIR), Permutt tipping-point sensitivity, and Rubin's-rules vs frequentist variance debate. Use when preparing regulatory submissions, defining estimands, or implementing missing-data sensitivity analyses.

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。

Describe patterns that may indicate bad-faith or manipulative communication including gish gallop, whataboutism, tone policing, motte-and-bailey, sealioning, lying by omission, deflection, and strategic evasion. Use when the user suspects manipulation, notices repeated non-engagement, wants to analyze debate tactics, or mentions 'bad faith', 'deflection', 'manipulation', 'dodging the question', 'avoiding the issue', 'gaslighting', 'moving goalposts'. Describes behavioral patterns without making psychological diagnoses.

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。

Naturalistic causal reasoning for failures and disputed attribution. Use when postmortems or root-cause debates need reframing. NOT for causal inference, fault trees, or fully observed failures.

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 vague "what should we do about X" into a scored decision - explicit actions, an explicit unknown, an explicit prior, and one utility scale - then picks by maximum expected utility and checks the result for framing effects. Use when facing a choice between options under uncertainty, when a decision has stalled in circular debate, when someone asks "should we do A or B", or before writing any decision record, strategy memo, or roadmap commitment.

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。

Scans recent X posts for the most debated/hot topic right now in a given category (e.g., crypto, tech, sports.

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 orchestrating implementer/judge subagents — form gate + nine modes (do-and-judge ±two-stage, steps/parallel/worktrees, competitively, debate, live-app-judge, adversarial-council).

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。

Decision transparency, feedback collection, and debate invitations for AID methodology. Active in ALL phases for ALL roles.

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 orchestrating Multi-Agent Debate (MAD), adversarial code reviews, or pull-request deliberation to enforce Response Anonymization, expert persona assignment, and weighted post-hoc voting.

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 en collaboration entre agents IA (swarm, débat, vote, délégation, consensus)

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。

Prepares statistical reports for clinical trials following CONSORT 2025, SPIRIT 2025, ICH E9(R1) estimands, and FDA 2023 covariate adjustment guidance. Covers Table 1 generation, analysis populations (ITT/FAS/PP/Safety), the 5 ICH E9(R1) intercurrent-event strategies, MMRM under MAR (mmrm), reference-based MI (rbmi J2R/CR/CIR), Permutt tipping-point sensitivity, and Rubin's-rules vs frequentist variance debate. Use when preparing regulatory submissions, defining estimands, or implementing missing-data sensitivity analyses.

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。

Implements missing-data sensitivity analyses for confirmatory clinical trials including MMRM under MAR (with Kenward-Roger correction), reference-based multiple imputation (J2R, CR, CIR, LMCF per Carpenter-Roger 2013), Permutt delta-adjustment / tipping-point analysis, pattern-mixture identifying restrictions (CCMV, NCMV, ACMV), and the Cro vs Bartlett variance debate. Use when handling missing primary or secondary endpoint data in regulatory submissions following NRC 2010 and ICH E9(R1).

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。

Convenes multiple agents to debate an important decision

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。