2,574 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Verify that Codex Slides changes are durably reflected in project state and visibly reflected in the exact Codex Browser slide, panel, version, checkpoint, or presentation surface. Use after creation, rendering, editing, restyling, mark edits, speaker-note changes, version restores, or export.
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。
Headless Chromium CLI for QA testing and site dogfooding. 100-200ms per command after startup. Persistent state with cookies, tabs, sessions. Snapshot system with element refs. Navigate, interact, verify page state, take screenshots, check responsive layouts, test forms, handle dialogs.
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。
Merge PR, wait for deploy, verify production health. 10-step workflow: pre-flight, CI check, readiness gate, merge (respects merge queue), detect platform, wait for deploy, canary verification, revert option, deploy report. Auto-detects Fly, Render, Vercel, Netlify, Heroku, GitHub 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。
Check and compare software component versions on SageMaker HyperPod cluster nodes - NVIDIA drivers, CUDA toolkit, cuDNN, NCCL, EFA, AWS OFI NCCL, GDRCopy, MPI, Neuron SDK (Trainium/Inferentia), Python, and PyTorch. Use when checking component versions, verifying CUDA/driver compatibility, detecting version mismatches across nodes, planning upgrades, documenting cluster configuration, or troubleshooting version-related issues on HyperPod. Triggers on requests about versions, compatibility, component checks, or upgrade planning for HyperPod clusters.
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 Java business systems with ReachAI SDK registration, SDK instance heartbeat, gateway/embed access, and optional API Management handoff. Use when asked to connect a Spring Boot service to ReachAI, add reachai-capability-sdk or reachai-spring-boot2-starter, configure reachai.registry/reachai.project/reachai.capability, prepare @ReachCapability metadata for later manual SDK sync, or verify SDK onboarding from a ReachAI manifest.
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 writing agent-relay workflows that must fully validate features end-to-end before merging. Covers the 80-to-100 pattern - going beyond "code compiles" to "feature works, tested E2E locally." Includes repair-before-failure validation gates, review-depth fresh-eyes review/fix loops with test hardening, PGlite for in-memory Postgres testing, mock sandbox patterns, test-fix-rerun loops, verify gates after every edit, and the full lifecycle from implementation through passing tests to commit.
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 academic papers for correctness, quality, and novelty using OpenJudge's multi-stage pipeline. Supports PDF files and LaTeX source packages (.tar.gz/.zip). Covers 10 disciplines: cs, medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, economics, psychology, environmental_science, mathematics, social_sciences. Use when the user asks to review, evaluate, critique, or assess a research paper, check references, or verify a BibTeX file.
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。
Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.
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。
Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.
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。
Automatic final verification pass on completed deliverables. Runs at the end of every fable-mode run — those skills invoke it before delivery. Also triggers when the user says "double check this". Uses a panel of fresh checker agents when spawning is authorized (otherwise a cold self-check) to verify the finished output — not to redo the task. Any FAIL gets fixed and re-checked before 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。
Always-on operational guardrails, model-independent. Apply on EVERY task and EVERY model whether or not fable-mode's staged loop is running. Three rules: verify-before-flag, warning batching, and find-and-replace safety. Trigger whenever a response would flag a problem, raise a warning, or edit files with search-and-replace.
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。
File Indian income tax returns for FY 2025-26 (AY 2026-27), or plan FY 2026-27 (Tax Year 2026-27), including current-year advance-tax estimates. Use when the user wants to file their ITR, compute or verify Indian income tax, compare the old vs new tax regime, read a Form 16, AIS, TIS or Form 26AS, reconcile TDS, handle capital gains from Zerodha/Groww/Upstox statements, check their tax refund, or asks about ITR-1/ITR-2/ITR-3/ITR-4, sections 80C/80D/87A/111A/112A, crypto tax, advance tax, or the income-tax e-filing portal - even if they just say "help me with my taxes" in an Indian context.
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。
Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT DRAFTING — generating, redlining, or rewriting contract language from instructions. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Contract Drafting). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/ stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to draft this clause/agreement", "best AI for drafting contracts", "route this drafting task", or is about to generate/redline contract text and hasn't fixed a model.
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。
Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT REVIEW — reviewing an existing agreement for risk, deviations from standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks. Contract review is a COMPOSITE skill (extraction + reasoning + redlining + conflict-detection), so this routes by the dominant sub-task. Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/ language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to review this contract / NDA / MSA", "best AI to redline", "route this contract review", or is about to review an agreement without a fixed model.
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。
Pick the right LLM for LEGAL INFO EXTRACTION — pulling facts, clauses, dates, parties, obligations, and structured fields out of contracts and legal documents. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Info Extraction; CUAD/MAUD/ACORD). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to extract clauses/data from these documents", "best AI for contract data extraction", "route this extraction task", or is about to pull structured fields from legal docs without a fixed model.
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。
Pick the right LLM for LEGAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS — issue-spotting, rule application, case/statute analysis, memos, and multi-step agentic research. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (Vals AI LegalBench across 124 models; Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark for agentic work). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model for legal research / case analysis / a memo", "best AI for legal reasoning", "route this research task", or is starting legal analysis without a fixed model.
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。
Pick the right LLM for LEGAL TRANSLATION — translating contracts, statutes, case law, and legal correspondence across languages, including Arabic/MENA. Vendor-neutral routing triangulated from mid-2026 evidence (WMT25 human eval, SwiLTra-Bench legal-MT, multilingual-reasoning proxies, ArabLegalEval). There is NO clean legal-translation leaderboard, so this vertical is directional and treats human legal-linguist review as mandatory. Asks up to 4 quick questions (language pair, cost, speed, privacy/certification), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to translate this contract/statute", "best AI for legal translation", "translate this legal doc to/from Arabic", or is about to machine-translate legal text without a fixed model.
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。
No Inference / Source-Locked Verification. Forces Claude to answer ONLY from user-provided materials and/or online sources actually accessed — no inference, no assumptions, no gap-filling. Every factual, legal, numerical, or procedural claim must be anchored to a cited source. Use whenever Claude reviews documents, summarises evidence, checks accuracy, drafts submissions, creates timelines, extracts facts, checks citations, analyses rules, prepares legal arguments, compares documents, verifies claims, produces chronologies, works from uploaded materials, performs legal research, checks case status, or does anything where evidential fidelity matters. Also trigger on: 'source-locked', 'no inference', 'only from the materials', 'don't assume', 'stick to the evidence', 'verify this', 'check this is right', 'work from the documents'. Overrides Claude's default tendency to fill gaps. If evidential accuracy matters, use this skill.
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。
Verifies UK case-law citations, pinpoint references and quotations against the official public register — The National Archives' Find Case Law — and statutory references against legislation.gov.uk, before a document that cites them is relied on, served or filed. Every check returns a graded verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH (the citation resolves to a different case — the classic AI miscitation), NOT ON REGISTER, OUTSIDE COVERAGE (the register cannot answer — absence proves nothing), or UNCHECKABLE (a law-report citation). The grading exists because there are two ways to get this wrong: citing a case that does not exist, and accusing a real case of not existing. Use when asked to check citations, verify a case exists, confirm a quotation is verbatim, check a pinpoint paragraph, audit a draft's authorities, screen a document for hallucinated cases, or check a statutory provision is in force. Not a substitute for reading the judgment: existence is not authority.
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。
Screens a dismissal — proposed or already done — against the unfair dismissal framework for England & Wales, and shows where it is exposed. Structures the qualifying-service question, the automatically-unfair categories (no qualifying period), and a Burchell / Polkey / band-of-reasonable-responses analysis for a solicitor to verify — it does not determine fairness. Surfaces specific procedural risks. Use when the user says 'is this unfair', 'screen this dismissal', 'ordinary unfair dismissal', 'automatic unfair dismissal', or wants a structured fairness review before or after dismissal.
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 original, competition-ready commercial mediation problems and confidential packets with iterative validation. Use when a user provides a topic, industry, dispute sketch, or existing general-information packet and wants a public packet plus confidential packets for both sides—or one named side. Build a narrow but workable settlement corridor; verify factual and numerical consistency, information asymmetry, balance, originality, and commercial feasibility; and revise until deterministic and semantic exit criteria pass. Do not use merely to summarize an existing packet or to advise parties in a real dispute. Requires local file access; Python 3 is recommended for bundled deterministic checks, with disclosed manual fallbacks when unavailable.
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 a spreadsheet of test entries — newly designated names from OFAC, OFSI, and EU sanctions lists plus deliberate variations of those names — to validate that a sanctions screening system catches fresh designations and is tuned to the right fuzziness threshold. Use this whenever the user asks for sanctions list update test data, screening regression test data, screening QA, fuzzy match calibration, or wants to verify their screening lists are current. Trigger even if the user doesn't say 'screening' explicitly — phrases like 'test my sanctions list', 'check our SDN coverage', 'is my list up to date', or 'build me a regression set from the latest designations' should also invoke this skill.
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。
Routes any legal task to the right LLM, like OpenRouter but for legal work and grounded in benchmarks instead of brand loyalty. Built from mid-2026 legal evals (legalbenchmarks.ai, Vals AI × Stanford LegalBench across 124 models, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, the Atticus Project's CUAD/MAUD/ACORD) plus translation evidence (WMT25, SwiLTra-Bench, ArabLegalEval). Covers five verticals: contract drafting, info extraction, legal research, contract review, and legal translation (including Arabic/MENA). Each asks up to four questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then returns a primary model, a fallback, what to avoid, and what a human must verify. Core principle: capability is not controllability, so every route ends with a verification step. Not legal advice; a lawyer owns the output.
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。
Mandatory external verification workflow for ALL non-trivial factual claims before presenting them as true. This skill MUST be used whenever Claude is asked to research any topic, answer factual questions, provide current information, draft documents containing factual claims, give legal advice or cite legal authority, discuss current events or public figures, provide technical or scientific information, state statistics or data points, or answer ANY question where the answer could have changed over time. Also trigger when the user asks Claude to 'check', 'verify', 'confirm', 'research', 'look up', or 'find out' anything, or when the user needs information that requires freshness, precision, or source accuracy. This skill overrides any default tendency to answer from memory. If a task involves stating facts, citing sources, or providing current information — use this skill.
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。