「formal」の検索結果

Structure persuasive speeches and formal arguments in forensic, legal, policy, and competitive debate styles. Use when the user needs to prepare talks, opening or closing arguments, policy pitches, public explanations, debate speeches, or mentions 'forensic speech', 'formal argument', 'persuasive speech structure', 'debate speech', 'opening statement', 'closing argument'. Turns structured claims into audience-tuned persuasive delivery.

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-level complex analysis knowledge. Use when working with complex functions, holomorphic functions, Cauchy's theorem, contour integration, Laurent series, residues, conformal mappings, or analytic continuation. Also use when the user mentions 'holomorphic', 'analytic', 'Cauchy theorem', 'residue', 'contour integral', 'Laurent series', 'conformal map', 'Riemann mapping', 'Mobius transformation', 'harmonic function', 'entire function', or 'meromorphic'.

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 produces a deliverable, factual claim, dataset, code change, decision, publication, deployment, automation, or irreversible action whose failure would matter; when the user asks for a quality gate, acceptance criteria, QA, completeness, validation, audit, evidence, preflight, release readiness, or a definition of done; or before claiming completion on medium- or high-risk work. Automatically decide whether a formal gate is warranted, derive task-specific pass/fail criteria, gather evidence, and block unsupported completion. Make sure to use this skill even when the user does not say "quality gate" if consequential work needs acceptance criteria or completion evidence. Skip formal gating for trivial, reversible, low-impact requests.

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。

SOP for formal mathematical domain modeling. Trigger when: - Creating new formal models or applying mathematical lenses to analyze existing specifications. - Navigating phases: Identify, Select, Construct, Validate, Record, Connect. - Prompt contains: /form, form workflow, categorical, coalgebraic, linear logic, information-theoretic, validation.

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 formal IT/hardware purchase request documents from informal requirements. Use when creating purchase justifications, cost-benefit analyses, ROI calculations, vendor comparisons, or MARP presentation slides for management approval.

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。

Knowledge base from the DoD Digital Engineering Strategy (2018, OUSD/ODASD(SE)). Use for the Department of Defense's five digital engineering goals — (1) formalize the development, integration, and use of models; (2) provide an enduring authoritative source of truth; (3) incorporate technological innovation; (4) establish supporting infrastructure and environments; (5) transform the culture and workforce — plus their focus areas, the document-to-model and design-build-test→model-analyze-build shifts, model formalisms/provenance, governance and access control of the authoritative source of truth, and the coordinate→plan→pilot→sustain rollout. A vision-and-policy strategy, deliberately non-prescriptive. Does NOT provide a how-to method, tool tutorials, MBSE/SysML mechanics, or implementation-plan content; thin on metrics, acquisition-policy detail, and step-by-step procedure. Excludes the CAC-gated Digital Engineering Body of Knowledge (DEBoK).

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。

Baut und prüft neue Agentenrollen im ellmos-Ökosystem: native Claude-Code- Subagenten (dauerhafte Rollendefinition) und Companion-Worker (SendMessage- wiederverwendete Instanz für eine Ticket-/Aufgabenserie). Formalisiert das bislang unformalisierte eigene Wissen aus dem laufenden Bau von Agentenrollen (ati-agent, bueroassistent, versicherungs-agent u. a.) zu einem wiederverwendbaren Scaffold-plus-Verify-Ablauf. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn eine neue Rolle entstehen soll ("neue Agentenrolle bauen", "Subagent anlegen", "Companion-Worker starten") oder eine bestehende gegen die Haus-Konventionen geprüft werden soll ("ist dieser Agent richtig aufgesetzt?").

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。

Review code changes for correctness, completeness, bugs, edge cases, and quality. Load when the user explicitly asks to review code, check a PR, review a diff, audit recent changes, or verify an implementation matches requirements. Also triggers on "review this code", "check this PR", "review my changes", "code review", "did this implement correctly", "audit this diff", or any explicit request for a formal code review. Do NOT load for "review changes for context" or "review what happened" — those are requests to read code, not to perform a formal 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。

Defensive counterpart to federated-harbor-redteam: closes the smells that red team opens against The Federated Harbor whitepaper. Federation-specific defenses for cross-harbor primitives — mechanization commitments, scope hedges, cross-paper dependency formalization, pre-emptive analogies (CT, Macaroons, atomic swaps), and defense-in-depth framing (refuses vs prices). Use during a versioned red-vs-white round; pairs with federated-harbor-redteam. NOT for ad-hoc code review, NOT for the Anchor or Bonded papers (use whitehat-defense).

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。

Structure persuasive speeches and formal arguments in forensic, legal, policy, and competitive debate styles. Use when the user needs to prepare talks, opening or closing arguments, policy pitches, public explanations, debate speeches, or mentions 'forensic speech', 'formal argument', 'persuasive speech structure', 'debate speech', 'opening statement', 'closing argument'. Turns structured claims into audience-tuned persuasive delivery.

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 multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', 'adversarial plan', 'hostile planning', 'cross-critique plan', '하이퍼플랜', '적대적 계획', '교차 비평'.

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 multi-agent planning: a hostile team cross-critiques a plan before it is formalized. Use when planning needs maximum rigor or the user asks for a hyperplan / adversarial or cross-critique 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。

Evaluates scientific claims and evidence quality. Applies to experimental design validity, biases and confounders, statistical interpretation, evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), and teaching critical analysis. Supports evidence appraisal and identifying flaws; formal peer review writing belongs to peer-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。

Designs experiments and studies BEFORE data is collected — choosing a design, randomizing, blocking, and laying out treatment combinations so results are interpretable. Use whenever someone is planning a study, asks how to assign subjects/samples to groups, mentions randomization, blocking, stratification, controls, factorial or fractional-factorial designs, design of experiments (DOE), screening many factors, response-surface optimization, crossover or repeated-measures or split-plot designs, cluster/group randomization, Latin squares, plate layouts, batch/run-order effects, replication vs. pseudoreplication, or sequential/adaptive/group-sequential designs. Trigger even for informal phrasings like "how should I set up this experiment", "how do I avoid confounding", "what's the best way to test these 6 factors", or "assign these mice to conditions". For computing the sample size or power once the design is chosen, use statistical-power; for analyzing data already collected, use statistical-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。

Build a structured deep-reading Paper Card for one scientific paper, analysing methods, experiment-to-claim evidence, limitations, and research ideas. Use for 论文精读卡、方法拆解、证据链分析; not full-paper bilingual translation or formal peer 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。

Creates task-oriented technical documentation with progressive disclosure. Use when writing READMEs, API docs, architecture docs, or markdown documentation. Also use this skill at the END of any completed reverse engineering, penetration testing, CTF, or security analysis task to generate a formal report in the user's project directory. Trigger keywords: 写报告, 写文档, 出报告, writeup, 技术文档, report, documentation.

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 a formal specification for an existing GitHub Actions CI/CD workflow, optimized for AI consumption and workflow maintenance.

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。

Draft a structured investment committee memo for PE deal approval. Synthesizes due diligence findings, financial analysis, and deal terms into a professional IC-ready document. Use when preparing for investment committee, writing up a deal, or creating a formal recommendation. Triggers on "write IC memo", "investment committee memo", "deal write-up", "prepare IC materials", or "recommendation memo".

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。

为“非正式发布会”官方模板设计或修改全屏视频内的中英双语花字，包括渐变材质字、 流光、关键词动效、造型标签与实片排版。仅在选用该模板或用户明确要求该模板的 字幕风格时使用；不改变普通字幕的默认样式，不负责生成底层视频或配乐。

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。

Apply bottom-up and top-down role mining techniques, including clustering algorithms and formal concept analysis, to discover optimal RBAC roles from existing user-permission assignments, consolidating overlapping roles and enforcing least privilege. Use when an identity program needs to reduce role explosion or redesign its RBAC role set from access 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。

Builds a structured SOC incident response playbook for ransomware attacks covering detection, containment, eradication, and recovery phases with specific SIEM queries, isolation procedures, and decision trees. Use when SOC teams need formalized response procedures for ransomware incidents aligned to NIST SP 800-61 and MITRE ATT&CK ransomware techniques.

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 uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.

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 to build academic-style .docx output: journal / conference / thesis chapters carrying formal citation style (APA, Chicago, IEEE, MLA), numbered equations, figure & table cross-references, footnotes/endnotes, bibliography, or multi-column journal layout. Trigger on: 'research paper', 'journal paper', 'conference paper', 'manuscript', 'thesis', 'APA', 'MLA', 'Chicago', 'IEEE two-column', 'bibliography', 'hanging indent', 'citation style', 'abstract + keywords', 'equation numbering', 'cross-reference', paper with footnotes/endnotes. Output is a single .docx.

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。

Document a business process — flowcharts, RACI, and SOPs. Use when formalizing a process that lives in someone's head, building a RACI to clarify who owns what, writing an SOP for a handoff or audit, or capturing the exceptions and edge cases of how work actually gets done.

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。