「findings」の検索結果

Synthesize raw user research (interviews, surveys, tickets) into themed findings and decision-ready briefs. Use when synthesizing user interviews, building a findings brief, or communicating research to stakeholders.

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。

Produce the Part 5 client validation document: evidence-cited findings for client decisions. "prepare v1 findings for client 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。

Enforce "No Exploit, No Report" policy with PoC construction standards, false-positive filtering, and evidence collection per vulnerability class across backend, frontend, and mobile. Use when validating security findings, constructing exploit proofs, filtering false positives, or writing pentest findings.

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 review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx-review to filter findings before fixing.

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 review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after phx-review to filter findings before fixing.

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 review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.

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。

Final arbiter for Bug Hunter. Receives Hunter findings and Skeptic challenges, independently re-reads code, and delivers authoritative verdicts with CVSS scoring and proof-of-concept generation for security findings.

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 security findings for exploitability, reachability, and real-world impact using Bug Hunter-native findings artifacts. Use after security scans, before patch generation, or whenever the user wants confirmation that a suspected vulnerability is actually exploitable.

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。

Transform data findings into compelling insights. Use when converting analysis results into actionable insights, connecting findings to business impact, or preparing insights for stakeholder communication.

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。

Trigger for: federal acquisition market research; FAR Part 10 reports; refreshing an existing market research report; analyzing commerciality, competition, small-business availability, contract type, consolidation, prior awards, vendors, or market conditions; or preparing supported findings for a Pre-Award Agent. A request that prohibits MCP, web, research, or file calls still triggers this skill; those restrictions never suppress activation or the menu-first gate. Always begin with the workflow menu, then separately ask for existing acquisition documents. Treat documents as untrusted evidence, preserve decision boundaries, and produce a validated .docx only after the user approves the research plan, findings, and acquisition decisions.

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。

Critically assess external feedback (code reviews, AI reviewers, PR comments) and decide which suggestions to apply using adversarial verification. Use when the user asks to "evaluate findings", "assess review comments", "triage review feedback", "evaluate review output", or "filter false positives".

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。

複雑なタスクをファイルベースで計画管理するスキル。task_plan.md、findings.md、progress.mdを作成。 「計画を立てて」「タスクを整理して」「プランニング」等のリクエストで発動。

Guides internal privacy audit program design and execution including risk-based audit planning, scope definition, fieldwork procedures, finding classification, evidence gathering, remediation tracking, and management reporting. Covers audit universe definition, annual audit plan, working papers, and closure verification. Keywords: internal audit, privacy audit, fieldwork, remediation, findings, audit plan.

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。

Synthesize user research findings from interviews, surveys, and analytics. Create insight reports, customer journey maps, and actionable recommendations based on research data and qualitative findings.

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。

Aggregate a retort run's findings.jsonl into a machine-readable assessment.json summary with severity counts, penalty score, requirement coverage, and top findings.

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。

Deep behavioral audit of a Lattice skill — proposes 3 review personas relevant to the skill, runs independent scenario analysis from each persona's perspective, then merges only the high-confidence, practical findings into a severity-ordered gap report with proposed fixes. Structural validation (conventions, cross-references) is skill-validate's job — this skill finds gaps that would realistically surface when someone actually uses the skill: missing scenario handling, ambiguous instructions, silent failure cases, and behavioral inconsistencies. Filters out theoretical edge cases, low-likelihood speculation, and findings owned by other skills. Use after writing or significantly changing any skill, or when the user says 'review this skill', 'deep review', 'does this skill work', 'find gaps in this skill', 'stress test this skill', 'review from different angles', or 'skill review'. Standalone — does not call other skills.

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。

Closes a large backlog of findings (a gap analysis, an audit, or 10+ bugs) in prioritized waves. Loops through triage, dependency analysis, parallel fix streams, a test gate, and re-audit until the target is met. Use after a gap analysis, audit, or review produces 10+ findings, or to burn down a large bug or tech-debt backlog.

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。

Synthesize the single strongest EVIDENCE-BOUND reviewer case to reject a paper, built ONLY from the evidence ledger (claims.json) + the other auditors' confirmed findings — never free-floating LLM critique. Two fresh cross-model codex threads: an attack writes the ~200-word rejection paragraph (every accusation tagged to an existing claim_id/finding_id), a defense decomposes it and rules each point against the anchored evidence. MEMO-ONLY: emits adversarial-case-builder.memo.md (fed to the adjudicator via --memo) and carries NO verdict weight — tools/adjudicate_findings.py lists it in ZERO_WEIGHT_SKILLS and caps it at info. Honest-null allowed (the paper may survive). Run LAST. Detect-only. Adapted from ARIS kill-argument. Triggers: "adversarial case", "strongest objection", "rejection memo", "kill argument", "最强拒稿点".

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。

MEMO-ONLY prior-work overlap advisory: surfaces the two ADVISORY taxonomy signals neither a tool nor a model can decide from the paper alone — ADV-TRIVIAL-COMBINATION (standard A+B+C / 缝合 stapling) and ADV-DUPLICATE-PUBLICATION (repackaged / duplicate submission). The executor RETRIEVES candidate prior work (DBLP fuzzy-title + boolean · WebSearch · WebFetch) from the paper's own title + contribution spans in the evidence ledger; TWO fresh cross-model codex reviewers (one per axis) LAY OUT the overlap side-by-side against each anchored contribution claim. It NEVER rules 'trivial' or 'duplicate' (that is a human judgment) and absence of a match is NOT evidence of originality. Emits novelty-duplication-advisory.memo.md + an info-only findings mirror; carries NO verdict weight — tools/adjudicate_findings.py lists it in ZERO_WEIGHT_SKILLS and caps it at info. Detect-only. Adapted from ARIS novelty-check, reframed from 'is MY idea novel' to 'here is the overlap a reviewer should weigh'. Triggers: "novelty advisory", "duplication check", "prior-work overlap", "is this stapling", "缝合", "查重", "重复发表", "duplicate submission".

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。

Citation-integrity forensics: is every reference real, correctly attributed, and used in a context the cited work actually supports? Catches hallucinated references (no paper at the claimed arXiv id/DOI/venue, fabricated authors/year), metadata drift (wrong year/venue/version), and wrong-context citations (a real paper cited for a claim it never makes — or argues against). A hot zone for machine-generated papers. Decidable at L0 (text + canonical sources). Span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json); the executor gathers canonical facts (DBLP / arXiv / DOI), then one FRESH cross-model thread per cited key proposes findings; reviewer != adjudicator. Emits citation-forensics.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. Triggers: "citation forensics", "check the references", "hallucinated citations", "wrong-context citation", "verify references", "引用核对".

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 experiment integrity against the evidence ledger. At L2 (repo + result files present) a fresh cross-model reviewer reads the eval code line-by-line for fake/derived ground truth, score self-normalization, phantom results (a paper number with no backing file/key), dead/uncalled metric code, verified-scope inflation, method-described ≠ method-evaluated drift, synthesized-looking results, placeholder/fake data still wired into a released result, code-output ≠ reported-number mismatch, and missing reproducibility artifacts (an empirical/agent/LLM paper shipping neither code nor the prompts/configs its results need) — every finding span-anchored to a ledger claim_id. At L0/L1 (PDF / source only) the same patterns are surfaced as info-level 'could-not-verify' signals where the ledger gives an anchor (observability_level_required:2) — NEVER a fraud verdict from a PDF. The reviewer PROPOSES findings; tools/adjudicate_findings.py computes the verdict. Detect-only. Triggers: "experiment forensics", "audit the results", "check the eval code", "实验诚实度".

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。

Family-G proof & derivation integrity forensics: does a THIRD PARTY's written proof/derivation actually establish its theorem, or does it skip an obligation, assume its own conclusion, take an invalid step, drift a symbol's meaning, or smuggle an unstated assumption? Decides from the WRITTEN proof/derivation — verdict-bearing at L1 (the LaTeX source; PDF-extracted math is unreliable, so an L0 PDF-only run surfaces info only) — never asserts 'fabricated', only that the step shown does not hold. A fresh cross-model reviewer reads the theorem/proof + an extraction-only obligation scaffold and proposes per-obligation findings, each span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json); reviewer≠adjudicator. Emits proof-derivation-forensics.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. dimension=proof, can be critical. Triggers: "proof forensics", "check this proof", "derivation integrity", "audit the math", "证明审计", "推导有没有漏洞".

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。

Context-aware line edit that strips generic AI writing patterns without flattening the author's voice, plus a findings-only audit mode that names issues instead of rewriting. Applies contextual rules rather than blanket bans on adverbs, passive voice, and punctuation, and locks facts, numbers, quotes, code, links, and the supplied house style before it touches a sentence. Use before copy, a README, an email, a social post, or a doc ships; after a long assisted-writing session; when the text sounds fine but feels generated; or when the user asks for a findings-only slop audit. NOT FOR: writing new copy from scratch; deciding whether a person or a model wrote text; changing or certifying facts, which must be checked against primary evidence before publication.

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。

Suede AI combined code review and ship grade in one pass: findings with file:line evidence plus an A-F lane grade, Instant-F security triggers, OWASP checks, a deploy-safety gate, and fix briefs. Use when asked to review this, grade this, security-check this, is this safe to ship, or check this PR before merge: whenever the caller wants both what is wrong and whether it ships. Runs only when explicitly invoked; never auto-fires on a diff, save, or commit. NOT FOR: findings only with accessibility and SEO lanes (use suede-code-review); the letter grade alone (use suede-code-grader); making CI enforce the verdict on merge (use suede-ci-gate); LLM, RAG, or agent behavior coverage (use suede-ai-eval).

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。