「duplication」の検索結果

Screens biomedical / life-science papers for signs of data fabrication, image manipulation, and statistical anomalies, using the detection techniques distilled from the field's canonical exposure platforms (PubPeer, Data Colada, Science Integrity Digest, For Better Science) and tools (ImageTwin/Proofig, statcheck, GRIM/GRIMMER, Problematic Paper Screener, Seek & Blastn). Use when asked to check a paper/figure for image duplication, blot splicing, impossible statistics, paper-mill or tortured-phrase signals, research integrity, or "is this data faked"; or when a user shares a figure, Western blot, supplementary dataset, or DOI and asks whether it looks manipulated. Reports observable anomalies as questions for clarification — it never accuses anyone of fraud.

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 auditing a codebase for semantic duplication - functions that do the same thing but have different names or implementations. Especially useful for LLM-generated codebases where new functions are often created rather than reusing existing ones.

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。

Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, architecture rot, and low-value tests. Ranks findings by impact and refactor effort into a report at .turbo/technical-debt.md. Use when the user asks to "assess technical debt", "find technical debt", "review technical debt", "what should we refactor", "find refactoring candidates", "where is the code rot", "what's our worst code", "find low-value tests", or "which tests can we delete". Analysis-only — does not modify code.

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 for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps and low-value tests by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to "review my code", "full code review", "review my changes", "check for bugs", "scan for bugs", "review correctness", "security audit", "find vulnerabilities", "review security", "check API usage", "verify against docs", "check for cross-file duplication", "review consistency", "check for code reuse", "review simplicity", "find untested code", "find redundant tests", or "review test coverage".

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。

Refactoring pass — extracts repeated Tailwind class combos and markup into components, and lifts magic values into design tokens. Use when the codebase has obvious duplication, hardcoded hex values or pixel sizes, or when the user says "clean this up" / "extract components" / "tokenize styles". Invoke when the user asks for extract on their UI, or mentions 'extract' alongside design / UI / frontend work.

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 the instructions an agent already carries — CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, skills, tool descriptions — for contradictions, over-constraint, and duplication, then propose a cut list. Use when an agent ignores its own instructions, when a CLAUDE.md has grown bloated, or when the user asks to audit or rightsize their agent 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。

Audits Makefiles for build correctness, portability, and recipe duplication. Use when reviewing a Makefile or before committing Makefile changes.

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。

Detects codebase bloat via dead code, duplication, complexity, and doc bloat scans. Use when codebase feels large or before a release.

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。

Analyze codebases to identify reusable code patterns, duplications, and implementation patterns for future development. Use when refactoring code, identifying technical debt, finding opportunities for abstraction, or documenting common patterns in a directory or module. Outputs pattern catalogs, refactoring suggestions, and reusable template code.

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。

Find leads matching criteria and bulk-add them to an Apollo outreach sequence. Handles enrichment, contact creation, deduplication, and enrollment in one flow.

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。

Evaluate code (especially LLM-generated) for structural simplicity using Rich Hickey's "Simple Made Easy" framework. Use this skill whenever reviewing a PR, diff, or code snippet for accidental complexity — particularly when the code was generated by an AI coding assistant and line-by-line review isn't feasible. Also use when the user asks about complecting, simplicity vs. easiness, structural coupling, or concept deduplication. Trigger on phrases like "is this simple", "does this complect", "review for complexity", "structural analysis", or any reference to Hickey, Simple Made Easy, or grey-box 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。

Compress selected context to a target token budget while preserving decisions, evidence, constraints, and unresolved questions. Use when relevant material is already selected but too long; use context-optimization when selection, deduplication, and ordering are also required.

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。

All-in-one read preprocessing with fastp including adapter trimming, quality filtering, deduplication, base correction, and HTML report generation. Use when preprocessing Illumina data and wanting a single fast tool instead of separate Cutadapt, Trimmomatic, and FastQC steps.

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。

Refactor changed code to reduce duplication, complexity, and wasted work. Use for diffs, commit ranges, PRs, paths, staged changes, or working-tree changes.

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。

Hybrid fingerprint + LLM pipeline for bug classification, deduplication, and ticket generation. Normalizes CI logs, creates stable fingerprints, clusters near-duplicates, then uses LLM for severity classification and ticket writing. Includes bug reporting templates and severity/priority matrix. Use when: "bug triage," "classify bugs," "failure analysis," "auto-classify," "CI failures," "bug report," "defect template." Not for: runtime self-healing of one flaky locator — use test-reliability. Not for: designing new tests from production telemetry — use observability-driven-testing. Related: qa-metrics, qa-dashboard, ci-cd-integration, qa-project-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。

Validate that analytics and marketing tracking fire CORRECTLY: GA4/GTM dataLayer events, Meta/TikTok/LinkedIn pixels, and ad-tech tags. Covers building a tracking plan as the contract, intercepting collect-endpoint beacons and dataLayer.push in Playwright, asserting event name + params + values + timing + de-duplication, Consent Mode v2 gating, CI regression gating, and news-media events (article-view, scroll-depth, paywall). Use when: "test analytics tracking," "GA4 event test," "verify the pixel fires," "dataLayer test," "tracking plan," "Meta Pixel dedup," "scroll-depth tracking test," "gate tracking in CI." Not for: whether tracking is ALLOWED to fire under consent law (GDPR/CMP) — that is compliance-testing; this skill checks the data is CORRECT. SEO meta tags / structured data — out of scope. Related: compliance-testing, playwright-automation, api-testing, qa-project-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。

Polishes UI primitives one at a time using 2026 research-backed patterns — adds loading/icon states to buttons, replaces inline skeletons with primitives, adds secondary actions to errors, ensures 48px touch targets and visible focus indicators, applies a standard motion token ladder. Use when: 'make the UI feel more polished', 'add attention to detail', 'reduce component duplication', 'tighten the design system', 'apply craft to the frontend'.

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。

Extracts and records architectural decisions from diffs, conversation context, and explicit choices. Supports automatic extraction from staged changes, deduplication against prior decisions, and persistent ADR-format logging with spec traceability. Use after a significant design or architecture choice, before committing a diff that embeds implicit decisions, or when the same question keeps resurfacing.

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。

End-to-end substantive-integrity forensic sweep of a research paper (especially autoresearch / AI-Scientist-style output). Orchestrates the whole pipeline: ingest (arxiv-id | pdf | dir → working dir + pdftotext for L0) → /evidence-ledger (artifact manifest + observability level L0/L1/L2 + span-anchored claims.json) → fan out the integrity auditor skills (consistency, citation, baseline, experiment, presentation, proof-derivation, eval-design — each reads the ledger, emits span-anchored findings) + the zero-verdict-weight AIS writing-style track → advisory memos (/adversarial-case-builder + /novelty-duplication-advisory, no verdict weight) → deterministic tools/adjudicate_findings.py (--ledger REQUIRED) → reviewer-ready Integrity Forensics Report. Cross-model (fresh codex per dimension) and reviewer≠adjudicator: the model proposes findings, the deterministic adjudicator decides the verdict. Observability-aware, detect-only, never an opaque AI-text classifier (a separate zero-weight AIS section lists AI writing-style impressions, never moving the verdict). Triggers: "anti-autoresearch", "integrity audit this paper", "forensic review", "audit a submission", "审一篇投稿的诚信".

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。

Shared review framework that every domain reviewer (pci, oracle, gov, edtech, healthcare, mlops, etc.) MUST follow. Defines the output artifact (TM-{slug}.md), mandatory sections, severity scale, verdict format, the workflow scaffold (when-invoked, Step-0 read-inputs, HANDOFF), and the "domain heuristic vs generic check" boundary. Eliminates duplication across the ~30 reviewer prompts.

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。

Improve existing code without changing behavior: scan smells, simplify, dedupe, reuse utilities, and verify after edits. Use for refactor, cleanup, simplify, reduce duplication, extract method, dead code, or code smells. No PR.

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 the user asks for a literature review, academic deep dive, research report, state-of-the-art survey, topic scoping, comparative analysis of methods/papers, grant background, or any request that needs multi-source scholarly evidence with citations. Also trigger proactively when a user question clearly requires academic grounding (e.g. "what's known about X", "compare approach A vs B in the literature", "summarize the field of Y"). Runs an 8-phase (Phase 0..7), script-driven research workflow across 7 federated sources (OpenAlex, arXiv, Crossref, PubMed, DBLP, bioRxiv, Exa) with optional Semantic Scholar / Brave MCP enrichment, with deduplication, transparent ranking, dual-backend citation chasing (OpenAlex + Semantic Scholar), self-critique, and structured report output with verifiable citations.

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。

Process vehicle insurance Excel data using Pandas - file handling, data cleaning, merging, validation. Use when processing Excel/CSV files, handling data imports, implementing business rules (negative premiums, zero commissions), debugging data pipelines, or optimizing Pandas performance. Keywords: data_processor.py, Excel, CSV, Pandas, merge, deduplication, date normalization.

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。

Design a data cleaning and transformation pipeline — missing values, outliers, and deduplication. Use when asked to "clean this dataset", "handle missing values", or "deduplicate this 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。