「evidence」の検索結果

Use when profiling CPU/memory hot paths, generating flame graphs, or capturing JFR/perf evidence.

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 synthesizing perf findings into evidence-backed recommendations and 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。

Use when generating performance hypotheses backed by git history and code evidence.

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 appending structured perf investigation notes and evidence.

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。

Classify XQUIC GitHub issues with an evidence-backed L1-L4 resolution-complexity label while keeping validity, priority, severity, and disposition separate and skipping uniquely labeled issues unless the user explicitly forces a recheck. Use when triaging one issue or a batch of issues, creating an issue-complexity backlog, or applying or correcting L1-L4 GitHub labels.

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。

Verify whether a proposed XQUIC bug issue is real by checking the cited RFC or Internet-Draft mechanism against the repository's actual source behavior, tracing any root cause to current file and line evidence, and returning a fail-closed boolean gate. Use when validating an issue draft, investigating a claimed QUIC, HTTP/3, QPACK, or MoQT protocol violation, or before issue-submit may publish an issue.

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 evaluating David Einhorn-style forensic shorts and longs: accounting red flags, governance problems, capital allocation failures, and evidence-based short theses.

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 evaluating Muddy Waters-style forensic short research: fraud, channel checks, related-party structures, cash verification, governance failure, and evidence-based short theses.

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 evaluating Hindenburg-style investigative short reports: evidence chains, promoter networks, stock promotion, related parties, disclosure failures, and catalyst-driven short narratives.

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 enterprise-grade, AI-powered penetration testing automation CLI tool. Orchestrates multiple specialized AI agents (Planner, ToolAgent, Analyst, Reporter) backed by 4 AI providers (OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, OpenRouter) and 19 integrated security tools through YAML-defined workflows. Produces professional Markdown, HTML, or JSON security reports with full evidence capture and traceability.

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 Slack issue reports with one thread-only verdict, evidence review, cause-aware routing, tracker dedupe, and fail-closed ticket creation. Use only from the configured Benny triage automation.

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 for 'why does X work this way', 'why we picked Y', design rationale, regressions, postmortems, or data-backed thresholds. Discovers available MCPs and queries each evidence category (source control, issue tracker, long-form docs, real-time chat, infrastructure observability, error tracking, product analytics warehouse) in parallel, then returns a cited read on decisions and tradeoffs. Use how for runtime 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。

Use for "automate me", "create/update/refresh my -mode skill", "turn/capture my preferences or working style into a skill", or wanting agents to follow how the user works. Drafts or revises a personal -mode skill via create-skill + unslop, optionally pulling fresh evidence from recent transcripts.

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。

Keep a reviewable decision trail for long-running or unattended work: a TSV log with one row per decision (what, why, evidence, result). Local by default; commit it when a reviewer needs the trail to trust the result. Use for /show-me-your-work, autonomous or multi-phase runs, or work a human reviews after stepping away.

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 about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs. Evidence before assertions.

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。

Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.

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。

Strict RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle enforcement. Tests are never skipped or deferred. Run mode only, never watch mode. Exit code evidence mandatory.

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。

Evidence requirement enforcement ensuring all claims are backed by logs, test results, or exit codes. Zero = success, non-zero = failure. No guessing allowed.

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。

Execute tasks through competitive multi-agent generation, meta-judge evaluation specification, multi-judge evaluation, and evidence-based synthesis

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。

Manage evidence freshness by identifying stale decisions and providing governance actions

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。

Assesses whether and how an existing mobile product should migrate to React Native. Use when auditing one or more product repositories for migration readiness, including products whose iOS, Android, and other clients live in separate directories or repositories; choosing brownfield, greenfield, or a checkpoint-based path; defining a representative trial; or preparing a baseline and ROI decision before implementation. When product scope or material evidence is unavailable, grills the stakeholder with exactly one question per turn instead of sending a questionnaire.

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。

Systematically explore and test a mobile app on iOS/Android with agent-device to find bugs, UX issues, and other problems. Use when asked to "dogfood", "QA", "exploratory test", "find issues", "bug hunt", or "test this app" on mobile. Produces a structured report with reproducible evidence: screenshots, optional repro videos, and detailed steps for every issue.

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。

Run an external frontier-model referee (Claude Code -> a different vendor's frontier model via the Oracle CLI) on a paper, proof, estimator, or replication package -- and adjudicate what comes back. Use when the user says "send this to oracle", "get an external review", "run a referee round", "deep-check this proof", or before a submission when an independent second opinion is worth more than another in-house pass. Never launches bare: brief first, evidence-forcing prompt, coverage manifest, then CONFIRMED/REFUTED/DOWNGRADED triage.

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-brief + claim-record discipline for delegated or AI-assisted research work. Use when starting any substantive research task or long autonomous run (write the brief first), and when reporting results that will support a claim in a paper or decision (produce the claim record). Keeps faster execution from being confused with credible evidence.

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。