「failure analysis」の検索結果

Coordinates parallel investigation threads to simultaneously explore multiple hypotheses or root causes across different system areas. Use when debugging production incidents, slow API performance, multi-system integration failures, or complex bugs where the root cause is unclear and multiple plausible theories exist; when serial troubleshooting is too slow; or when multiple investigators can divide root-cause analysis work. Provides structured phases for problem decomposition, thread assignment, sync points with Continue/Pivot/Converge decisions, and final report 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。

Run error analysis on a dataset. Build a review UI, select diverse samples, monitor annotations, and organize failure modes.

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 a blameless postmortem for an incident caused by an AI agent or LLM feature — hallucinated facts shipped to users, runaway tool use, prompt injection, cost blowouts, or wrong actions taken autonomously. Use when asked to write up an AI incident, analyse why an agent did something wrong, or produce corrective actions after an LLM failure. Produces a structured postmortem with trace reconstruction, a root-cause layer analysis, and corrective actions including a permanent regression case. For non-AI production incidents use incident-postmortem.

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 generated or changed production code before it ships, using Clean Code, SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, and LLM-specific failure-mode checks in any programming language. Best used reactively after an agent writes, edits, refactors, or fixes code, before presenting, committing, or merging the result. Use when the user asks "review this PR", "is this safe to merge?", "make this cleaner", "audit this code", "refactor this", "fix this bug", or after a coding agent produced implementation code. Can also guide writing when explicitly invoked before a risky edit. Invoke it on your own initiative the moment you finish writing, editing, or refactoring non-trivial production code, before presenting or committing — don't wait to be asked. DO NOT USE for factual/conceptual questions, CI/tooling config, git workflow, running/debugging tests, pure architecture discussion, prose writing, data analysis, or test-code review (use test-guard).

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。

Add, configure, and manage faults on Simulink, Simscape, and System Composer model signals for robustness analysis and safety validation. Use when injecting faults (stuck, noise, gain, offset) onto block inports/outports, enabling fault simulation, or analyzing fault effects. Covers sensor failures, signal corruptions, actuator faults, FMEA validation, and robustness testing. Requires Simulink Fault Analyzer.

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 m6A modifications from Oxford Nanopore direct-RNA-seq (DRS) signal using m6Anet (multiple-instance-learning over DRACH 5-mer signal). Covers the upstream pipeline (Dorado/Guppy basecalling -> minimap2 map-ont -> nanopolish eventalign -> m6anet dataprep -> m6anet inference), per-site vs per-read probability including the mod_ratio stoichiometry column, the DRACH-only constraint, minimum-coverage thresholds (20-50 reads/site), multi-condition comparison via xPore/Nanocompore/ELIGOS, Dorado native modification calling (RNA004, 2024+), and the cDNA-vs-DRS distinction (cDNA Nanopore CANNOT detect modifications). Use when calling m6A from ONT DRS without immunoprecipitation, choosing m6Anet vs xPore vs Nanocompore vs ELIGOS vs Dorado native, interpreting probability_modified vs mod_ratio vs per-read probabilities, deciding between m6Anet (known DRACH sites) and Dorado/Remora (genome-wide screening), pinning RNA002 vs RNA004 chemistry and basecaller versions, or troubleshooting eventalign/dataprep failures.

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。

Debug iOS apps and profile performance using LLDB, the interactive Memory Graph Debugger, and Instruments. Use for crashes, retain-cycle inspection, hangs, build failures, and generic CPU, memory, energy, or network profiling. Use ios-memgraph-analysis for .memgraph capture, leaks CLI ownership paths, or persistent heap growth; use ios-ettrace-performance for ETTrace capture and JSON.

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 MATLAB test suites and analyze results, including test filtering, parallel execution, result diagnostics, code coverage collection, gap analysis, and CI/CD with buildtool. Use when running tests, filtering test suites, analyzing test failures, checking, collecting, or analyzing coverage, justifying uncovered code, or configuring CI pipelines. Do NOT use for writing, generating, or structuring tests. Do NOT use for Simulink coverage or Simulink testing workflows.

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。

How to read paid media dashboards without fooling yourself. Attribution models, platform reporting quirks, multi-platform reconciliation, ROAS vs LTV horizon traps, statistical noise in performance metrics, incrementality testing, and the failure modes that produce expensive lessons. Triggers on read paid media dashboard, attribution analysis, ROAS vs LTV, multi-platform reconciliation, ad incrementality, geo holdout, conversion lift study, ghost bidding, paid media reporting, board-deck paid media metrics, blended CAC, MMM, MTA, last-click attribution. Also triggers when a marketer is about to scale, kill, or rebudget a campaign based on platform metrics, or when reconciling platform reports against warehouse revenue.

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。

A discipline for designing experiments (A/B tests, multivariate, holdouts) so the results actually answer the question you asked. Hypothesis writing, sample size, duration, segment analysis, running discipline, matching a result to a pre-committed decision rule, and the common failure modes that produce confidently wrong shipping decisions. Use this skill whenever the user is planning a test that has not run yet: framing a hypothesis, sizing the sample, setting duration, choosing guardrails, or deciding whether something is worth testing at all. Triggers on design an experiment, experiment plan, A/B test, split test, multivariate test, holdout, experiment hypothesis, sample size, minimum detectable effect, MDE, test duration, guardrail metric, no peeking, pre-committed decision rule, is this worth testing. Use `experimentation-analytics` instead when the test has already run and the question is how to read the result panel.

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 thinking partner that stress-tests plans, prepares board meetings, and surfaces blind spots. Use when you need plan validation, board prep, hard-decision frameworks, or pre/post-mortem failure 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。

Universal skill diagnosis and optimization tool. Detect and fix skill execution issues including context explosion, long-tail forgetting, data flow disruption, and agent coordination failures. Supports Agy CLI for deep analysis. Triggers on "skill tuning", "tune skill", "skill diagnosis", "optimize skill", "skill debug".

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。

Error handling review — silent failure detection, catch block analysis, error logging.

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。

Identify failure modes before they occur using structured risk 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。

Use only for MSBuild failure investigation, build-performance analysis, or review of existing build XML/extension contracts. A plan to convert a working legacy/non-SDK project to SDK style or migrate packages.config is a project-system migration, NOT a build-file review: do not activate, even to check scope. Framework/API upgrades are also excluded. Activate for advisory Import/Exists hook and NuGet packed-import questions even without a checkout or failed build; .csproj/.fsproj/.vbproj/.props/.targets conditions; custom-target inputs/outputs; .binlog capture/replay; failing dotnet build/restore/pack/publish or MSBuild-based test builds; slow evaluation, compilation, copying, or no-change builds; and controlled timing comparisons. Exclude SDK installation alone, C# refactoring, runtime profiling, assertions after successful builds, and non-MSBuild builds.

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 an eval plan for an AI feature - error analysis on real traces, failure-mode ranking, code checks and binary LLM judges validated against human labels, CI tests, production monitoring, and a launch bar. Use when you ask how do we eval this, how do I test an AI feature, our LLM outputs are inconsistent, are the evals good enough, LLM-as-judge, hallucinations, or what accuracy is good enough to launch. Draws on 41 Lenny's Podcast guests incl. Hamel Husain, Shreya Shankar and Sander Schulhoff.

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。

Security intelligence for code analysis. Detects SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, authentication issues, crypto failures, and more. Actions: scan, analyze, fix, audit, check, review, secure, validate, sanitize, protect. Languages: JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, PHP, Java, Go, Ruby. Frameworks: Express, Django, Flask, Laravel, Spring, Rails. Vulnerabilities: SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, authentication bypass, authorization issues, command injection, path traversal, insecure deserialization, weak crypto, sensitive data exposure. Topics: input validation, output encoding, parameterized queries, password hashing, session management, CORS, CSP, security headers, rate limiting, dependency scanning.

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。

Guide to KEGG pathway enrichment for DEG results. Covers ORA vs GSEA, mandatory directionality splitting, KEGG organism codes, API failure handling with offline fallbacks, cross-condition comparisons, and answer-first reporting. Consult when running enrichment with clusterProfiler or gseapy.

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 local AI coding-agent sessions with agenttrace for cost, tool failures, latency, anomalies, health, diffs, and CI gates.

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。

Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.

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。

Fix silent video/media processing failures caused by URL extraction code that filters on file extensions (.mp4, .webm, .webp). Use when: (1) Media moderation, transcoding, or analysis silently skips files from Blossom or content-addressed storage servers, (2) URL extraction from Nostr event tags (imeta, r tags) drops URLs without recognized extensions, (3) CDN fallback URLs append .mp4 but the actual server uses extensionless content-addressed paths like /{sha256}. Common in Nostr video events (kind 34236) where different clients use different URL formats.

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 failed or stuck proofs and propose auxiliary lemmas to help complete the proof in Isabelle/HOL or Coq. Use when encountering proof failures, stuck proof states, unprovable subgoals, or when needing to strengthen induction hypotheses. Identifies missing lemmas, suggests proof strategies, and generates helper lemmas with appropriate statements and proof sketches. Supports inductive proofs, case analysis, rewriting, and complex proof obligations.

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。

Explain why counterexamples violate specifications by analyzing formal specifications (temporal logic, invariants, pre/postconditions, code contracts), informal requirements (user stories, acceptance criteria), test specifications (assertions, property-based tests), and providing step-by-step traces showing state changes, comparing expected vs actual behavior, identifying root causes, and assessing violation impact. Use when debugging test failures, understanding model checker output, explaining runtime assertion violations, analyzing static analysis warnings, or teaching specification concepts. Produces structured markdown explanations with traces, comparisons, state diagrams, and cause chains. Triggers when users ask why something failed, explain a violation, understand a counterexample, debug a specification, or analyze why a test fails.

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。

Identify the precise location of bugs in source code, modules, and systems. Use this skill when debugging applications, investigating test failures, analyzing error reports, tracing runtime issues, or performing root cause analysis. Analyzes stack traces, error messages, failing tests, and code patterns to pinpoint buggy functions, classes, files, or modules with confidence rankings and supporting 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。