「integrity」の検索結果

Verify that every quantitative claim in the paper is traceable to an analysis output file, and that no important output was omitted. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants to check that the paper and analysis are consistent before submission. Triggers include: "run the quality gate", "check the paper matches the analysis", "verify consistency", "does the paper match my results", "check my numbers", "are my tables right", "quality check before submission", "verify my claims", "make sure everything is consistent", "double-check the paper against my output files", or any pre-submission integrity check between paper text and computed results.

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。

Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

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。

Examine what a file claims about itself and what it actually contains — powered by Apache Tika. True content-based type detection (extensions lie), provenance claims (authors, dates, creating application), revision and tamper signals (PDF incremental updates, tracked changes, hidden slides, zip integrity), hidden and embedded content (attachments, macros), risk indicators (PDF JavaScript actions, encryption), and content digests. Evidence gathering, not verdicts: Tika reports what the file asserts and what parsing observed; it does not attribute authorship or validate signatures. Use for triaging suspicious files, provenance questions, e-discovery-style review, or "is this file what it claims to be."

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。

Activate when reviewing or modifying dependency resolution, lockfile schema, package downloaders, signature/integrity checks, file integration cleanup, or anything that could expose APM to dependency confusion, typosquatting, malicious packages, or token leakage.

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 when the user is deploying or operating the DOCA Argus Service — the packaged BlueField-side runtime-security container that watches the BlueField and attached host for suspicious activity, integrity violations, and operational anomalies, and forwards findings to a SIEM (Splunk / ELK / Sentinel / syslog). Covers the four-axis config (detection policy, forwarding, sampling, host coverage), running the NGC container on BlueField Arm, and wiring the forwarder. Trigger even without "DOCA Argus" by name — typical implicit phrasings: "container green but no findings arrive", "false-positive flood in Splunk", or "runtime security on a fleet of BlueField-3s". Refuse and route elsewhere for installing DOCA, SIEM-side ingest stanzas, pre-baked detection-rule packs, and metrics observability (DOCA Telemetry). Argus is NVIDIA's currently- promoted runtime-security framework, superseding the older App Shield library; name it first for new runtime-security 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。

Quality metrics for IMC data including signal-to-noise, channel correlation, tissue integrity, and acquisition QC. Use when assessing data quality before analysis or troubleshooting problematic acquisitions.

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 multi-skill workflows defined in CLAUDE.md by checking skill existence, inter-skill data contracts (JSON schema compatibility), file naming conventions, and handoff integrity. Use when adding new workflows, modifying skill outputs, or verifying pipeline health before 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。

Memory integrity audit. Detects hallucinations, circular confirmations, and state poisoning. Runs automatically after 2 consecutive failures or at nightly deep dive. Uses Opus 4.6 as the auditor 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。

Use when the user asks to "measure how our narrative is landing", "track echo rate against our canon lexicon", or "check how AI answer engines describe our brand"; produces a resonance report — echo rate (overlap of market language with the narrative-registry canon lexicon, method declared), AI-answer perception via tavily.py --answer (proxy-labeled), share-of-voice on a locked competitor panel (reusing share-of-voice-tracker), and resonance signals from bluesky.py / gdelt.py / pageviews.py — every number labeled Measured / proxy / User-provided, feeding the TALE E dimension and the upstream of the E1 evidence-integrity veto. Not for rebuilding share-of-voice machinery — use share-of-voice-tracker; not for own-site GA4/GSC analytics — use performance-monitor; not for scoring TALE profile result — use narrative-quality-auditor; not for adjudicating claims — use offer-claims-registry. 回声率/AI回答感知/份额之声/共鸣信号

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 to "audit our brand narrative" or "is this message on-canon"; runs separate typed TALE truth, system, or effectiveness profiles and never averages them into one composite. Checks differentiation, canon, landing consistency, and evidence integrity. Not for launch readiness — use launch-readiness-auditor; not for social operations — use social-quality-auditor. 品牌叙事分层审计/发布前一致性放行

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 paid ad account for incremental contribution, wasted spend, or measurement integrity before scaling; runs a typed 20-item ROAS profile with verified vetoes and a SHIP/FIX/BLOCK/UNDECIDED gate on own exported data. Not for campaign structure design — use campaign-architect; not for creative production — use ad-creative-builder. 付费广告账户审计/ROAS评分

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 to "run a deliverability pre-flight before I send", "check my SPF/DKIM/DMARC/BIMI", "why am I landing in spam / promotions", or "score my sender reputation and list hygiene"; runs the ONE-TIME pre-send SEND S1 authentication pre-flight and builds the SEND S (Sender-integrity / Deliverability) evidence read — DNS + DMARC-RUA auth, domain/IP reputation, inbox placement, content/link/render, and point-in-time bounce/complaint hygiene — using Pass/Partial/Fail/Unknown/N/A states and scoring only at complete applicable coverage. Not for the recurring hygiene trend — use list-hygiene-monitor; not for final EQS or veto verdicts — use email-quality-auditor; not for segments/suppression lists — use list-segment-builder. 邮件送达率预检/SPF DKIM DMARC认证/发件域声誉

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 a target's TLS configuration — negotiated protocol version, cipher suite, certificate chain, expiry, and downgrade vectors. Use when: SOC2 auditor flagged your endpoint for "weak TLS" but you don't know which control failed (TSC CC6.7 transmission integrity vs CC6.6 encryption) or which cipher is the problem. Threshold: any negotiated TLSv1.0 or TLSv1.1, OR a cipher with RC4 / 3DES / null / EXPORT, OR a cert with under 30 days to expiry, OR a chain that fails hostname verification. Trigger with: "audit tls", "check ssl config", "weak tls", "analyze tls".

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。

Role profile — a reviewer who is fact-seeking, bedrock-seeking, honest, and rejecting. Demands that arguments rest on small facts that cannot be wrong (not on stacked assumptions dressed up as foundation), and that deliberately-unclear concepts be quarantined — never leaked into solid layers, never mixed with each other. Catches the failure mode where designs ship after partial grounding: most of the spec researched, the design feels finished, and the unresearched remainder holds the deal-breaker. Invoke with `/pedantic <target>` (e.g. `/pedantic review this design doc`, `/pedantic review the SDK design`, `/pedantic review this PR`). Probes cover logical structure (definitions, assumptions, boundaries, contradictions, unfalsifiability, vague quantifiers, counterexamples), epistemic honesty (researchable vs. discoverable-only-by-doing), bedrock integrity (assumed-bedrock, leaked uncertainty, mixed unclarity), and design pathology (YAGNI, wrong-layer abstraction, unclear responsibility, fragmentation, over-engineering). Use when you want a hard critique of a plan, design doc, technical doc, code change, or PR description — not a copy edit, not a vibe check.

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 robust, scalable database schemas for SQL and NoSQL databases. Provides normalization guidelines, indexing strategies, migration patterns, constraint design, and performance optimization. Ensures data integrity, query performance, and maintainable data models.

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。

Standards and audits for writing academic papers, especially ML/NLP submissions to NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, EMNLP, NAACL. Covers the author's house prose rules (zero em dashes, zero fluff, every sentence earns its place), verification of hallucinated claims and hallucinated or malformed bibliography entries, the ACL policy on AI writing assistance and what must be disclosed, and best practices for paper structure, experiments, reproducibility checklists, and rebuttals. Use this skill whenever the user is drafting, editing, polishing, restructuring, or reviewing a paper, abstract, intro, related work, rebuttal, or camera-ready; whenever they ask to "clean up" or "tighten" academic writing; whenever citations or a .bib file need checking; and whenever they ask what has to be disclosed about AI assistance. Reach for it even when the user only says "make this section better", "check my references", or "is this ready to submit".

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。

Prepare FDA/EMA regulatory submissions (IND/NDA/BLA/510(k)/PMA/MAA) in CTD format. Generate module outlines (Modules 1-5), run ICH compliance checks (ALCOA+, E6 GCP, Q1-Q12), verify data integrity, and produce submission-ready dossiers with cover letters and checklists.

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 study results are trustworthy by auditing design integrity, sample structure, statistical handling, bias control, validation chain, and claim discipline. It identifies where results are robust, fragile, overfit, under-validated, or overclaimed. Always separate reported findings from reliability judgment. Never fabricate references, PMIDs, DOIs, trial identifiers, study features, or validation claims.

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 comprehensive auditor for any agent skill — including Manus, OpenClaw/ClawHub, Claude, LobeHub, or custom SKILL.md-based skills. Use this skill whenever a user wants to evaluate, audit, review, score, or quality-check an agent skill before publishing, updating, or deploying. Covers two hard veto gates (structural redlines + research integrity redlines), static quality scoring across 25 criteria (ISO 25010 + OpenSSF + Agent), dynamic test input generation, multi-mode execution testing, multi-layer output evaluation with five specialized category rubrics (Evidence Insight / Protocol Design / Data Analysis / Academic Writing / Other), a Research Veto that applies to all four research categories, human eval viewer generation, actionable P0/P1/P2 optimization recommendations, and automatic skill improvement that outputs a polished, production-ready SKILL.md. Also use whenever a user says "audit my skill", "evaluate my skill", "improve my skill", or wants a corrected version after evaluation.

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。

Converts existing manuscript content into LaTeX format aligned with a target journal, conference, or template while preserving manuscript meaning and structural integrity.

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。

Checks whether manuscript references are accurately matched to claims, appropriately scoped, and not overextended, misquoted, or second-hand cited.

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。

Plan structure validation, phase completeness checks, reference integrity verification, and artifact existence confirmation. Provides the structured verification layer ensuring GSD artifacts are well-formed and complete.

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。

Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural 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。

Build or restructure a course syllabus from a topic list or reading list — course description + prerequisites, week-by-week schedule (topic → readings → deliverables), measurable learning objectives, an assessment scheme + rubric, standard policies (late work, AI use, academic integrity, accessibility), and a per-week work-list to hand to `/create-lecture`. Use when user says "build a syllabus", "structure my course", "turn this reading list into a schedule", "draft a course outline", "make a syllabus for Econ 7xx", or "map weeks to lectures". Economics-aware (PhD metrics/micro/macro sequences, undergrad); generic enough for any field.

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。