「verdict」の検索結果

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。

Use this skill to verify CLAIM-LEVEL grounding of a documentation page (or set of pages) against the source code. Activate when you have specific pages to check for factual accuracy -- not when sweeping a whole corpus (use docs-corpus-audit for that) and not when triaging a PR diff (use docs-sync for that). Trigger nouns: "is this doc accurate", "verify the page against the code", "fact-check this section", "any claims that drifted from source", "fact-checking", "grounding audit", "drift hunt", "claim verification". Returns per-claim verdicts (GROUNDED | PARTIAL | CONTRADICTED | UNSUPPORTED) with file:line evidence citations. Catches paragraph-level inaccuracies that page-level audit averages over -- e.g. a paragraph with 5 claims where 4 are grounded and 1 is fabricated. Does NOT modify files (returns advisory only); does NOT re-architect the docs; does NOT triage PRs.

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 docs-impact-classifier returns a structural verdict, signalling that the documentation TOC must change to accommodate the PR. Proposes TOC deltas (new pages, moves, merges) and emits new-page outline stubs that the doc-sync panel later fleshes out. Holds the 3-promise narrative (consume / produce / govern) and the persona ramps as hard constraints.

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 to run a multi-persona expert advisory review on a labelled pull request in microsoft/apm. panel-mode (full | lean | delta) selects a surface-gated roster plus a CEO synthesizer; omitted or unknown mode is lean. Do not spawn inactive stubs. The orchestrator is the sole writer to the PR: ONE recommendation comment, no verdict labels, no merge gating. The panel is advisory -- it surfaces findings, prioritizes follow-ups, and renders a ship-recommendation that the maintainer and author weigh.

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 to classify the documentation impact of a pull request diff, returning one of three verdicts -- no-change, in-place edit, or structural change -- with bounded LLM cost. Activate as a sibling skill of docs-sync; the orchestrator calls this first, before any panel spawn, to keep cost floor at 1 LLM call when no docs work is needed. Reads .apm/docs-index.yml as the corpus map; never reads the full corpus.

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 to run a four-panel adversarial advisory review on any pull request that touches the OpenAPM specification artifact (docs/src/content/docs/specs/openapm-*.md), its inline / sidecar JSON Schemas (docs/src/content/docs/specs/schemas/*.schema.json), or the conformance fixture seed (tests/fixtures/spec-conformance/**). The panel fans out to four spec-ecosystem reviewers (swagger-openapi-editor, oci-distribution-editor, pkgmgr-registry-contract-editor, w3c-tag-architect), each running in its own agent thread, and a spec-editor synthesizer that produces a fold-now / defer-v0.1.1 / defer-v0.2 / reject list plus a ship decision keyed off a 1..10 shocked_meter scale. The orchestrator is the sole writer to the PR: ONE consolidated comment, no verdict labels, no merge gating. The panel is advisory -- it surfaces findings, prioritizes folds, and renders a ship recommendation that the maintainer weighs.

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。

Runs rigorous visual QA across web, terminal, and paginated surfaces: an Apple HIG-based checklist, paired light/dark captures at phone and desktop widths, screenshot evidence, and a per-item PASS/FAIL verdict. Use for any UI build or change, or when asked whether a page, component, or TUI looks right or follows the platform's design guidelines.

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 whether a website's robots.txt allows the AI crawlers that decide visibility in ChatGPT Search, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot. Use when someone asks whether AI bots are blocked, whether to allow or block GPTBot, why a site never appears in AI answers, or wants a robots.txt review for AI crawlers. Reads only robots.txt, then returns a per-agent allow/block table, the exact rule responsible for each verdict, and the precise lines to change. Distinguishes training crawlers from the search crawlers that actually control 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。

Analyze a startup from three perspectives — VC investor, job applicant, and CEO/founder — covering market, traction, unit economics, team, defensibility, runway, equity value, culture, and competitive position, with a verdict for each. Use this skill whenever the user wants to evaluate a startup or private tech company: due diligence, whether to invest in it or join it, weighing a startup job offer, company health, outlook, or competitive position, or open-ended asks such as "what do you think of [company]" or "research [company] for me".

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。

[omh] Rendered UI needing a visual verdict: prepare observed-only rendered QA gates for web, frontend, image, document, and TUI surfaces. Use when the user says: visual-qa, visual qa, visual QA, visual quality assurance, visual check, web qa, web visual qa, screenshot qa.

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。

Critically review strategy drafts from edge-strategy-designer for edge plausibility, overfitting risk, sample size adequacy, and execution realism. Use when strategy_drafts/*.yaml exists and needs quality gate before pipeline export. Outputs PASS/REVISE/REJECT verdicts with confidence scores.

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。

Judge whether a market FAILED to react to news favorable to a crowded speculative position — step 2 of Jason Shapiro's COT contrarian process. Consumes a cot-contrarian-detector report (or an explicit direction) plus a Claude-curated events JSON, fetches the underlying price series with a documented fallback chain, and produces a fail-closed CONFIRMED / NOT_CONFIRMED / INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE verdict using a statistically validated drift-significance test (not a naive failure-ratio, which false-confirms on pure noise). Generic beyond COT — reusable for PEAD and macro-crowding news-failure checks. Use when the user asks to check news-failure confirmation, whether a crowded market "shrugged off" good/bad news, or wants to run Shapiro step 2 on a CROWDED_LONG/CROWDED_SHORT market.

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。

Synthesize the three Jason Shapiro contrarian-pipeline verdicts (COT crowding, news-reaction failure, weekly price-action confirmation) into one actionable setup_status via a fail-closed precedence state machine. Pure, offline synthesis -- no network, no API keys, no computation beyond validation and precedence.

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。

SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; adds a Phase 0 research/recon pass + rebuilt interview) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan or design, one question at a time, recommending an answer for each and exploring the codebase when it can answer itself, until every branch of the decision tree is resolved. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-me-codex", "grill me then have codex review", "grill me and stress-test the plan", "interview me about this plan then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes (auth, schema, concurrency, migrations, payments) and wants both alignment AND a cross-model sanity check before implementation. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-me (MIT). For the docs-aware variant use /grill-with-docs-codex; if you already have a plan and want only the Codex review use /codex-review. NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial 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。

SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; its docs-aware mode covers this variant) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening with living documentation. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan, one question at a time, challenging it against your project's existing domain model and glossary (CONTEXT.md), sharpening fuzzy terms, stress-testing with concrete scenarios, cross-referencing code, and updating CONTEXT.md + ADRs inline as decisions crystallise. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-with-docs-codex", "grill me against the docs then have codex review", "stress-test this against our domain model then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes in a project with established terminology/ADRs and wants alignment, documentation, AND a cross-model sanity check. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-with-docs (MIT). NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial 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。

Goal-directed research missions that interleave web research with data experimentation and end on a structured best-effort verdict

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 the weekly social readout", "which denominator does our engagement rate use", or "which posts won this week and what changes next cycle"; produces the organic-social metric dictionary (every rate names its denominator — ERR engagement-by-reach vs ERI by-impressions vs ER-by-follower — locked across periods), median-not-mean per-post rollups with organic and boosted separated, EMV as labeled exec-translation only (never inside any score), an attributed CHAOSS/Orbit-style community-health readout with employees excluded, and the best/worst-performer write-back the next calendar cycle consumes. Not for dollar-ROI math or the ECHO profile result gate verdict — use roi-calculator and social-quality-auditor. 社媒周报/互动率分母/指标字典/复盘回写

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 "find trending topics", "what trends should my brand jump on", or "time a campaign around a cultural moment"; produces a ranked trend report with brand-fit scores, format calls (rising/peak/declining), a cultural calendar, and go/skip recommendations. Not for finding the creators to run those trends — use influencer-discovery; not for building the brand posting calendar from a go verdict — use social-calendar-builder. 热点趋势洞察/借势营销

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。

Use when the user asks to "build my brand-safety exclusion lists", "set placement / topic / content exclusions before launch", "add network and audience exclusions", or "prep the A1 brand-safety evidence for the auditor"; produces a placement/network exclusion list, a content-suitability & sensitive-topic block list, an audience/negative-audience exclusion set, and a packaged A1 brand/placement-safety evidence file for the gate. Not for building the audiences you target — use audience-segment-builder; not for computing the RQS or issuing the A1 verdict — use ad-account-auditor. 品牌安全/排除位置/否定受众列表

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。

Best-practice authoring guidance AND a read-only policy gate for AWS Terraform generated by a migration skill. Load during any phase that writes a terraform/ directory — first as the "what to emit" posture rules + security-baseline spec, then after writing as the deterministic policy verdict. Read-only: it reports whether the generated Terraform passes; it never edits .tf files, never touches .phase-status.json, and never decides phase completion. Complements (does not replace) terraform fmt/init/validate.

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 any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict. Based on Karpathy's LLM Council methodology. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'council this', 'run the council', 'war room this', 'pressure-test this', 'stress-test this', 'debate this'. STRONG TRIGGERS (use when combined with a real decision or tradeoff): 'should I X or Y', 'which option', 'what would you do', 'is this the right move', 'validate this', 'get multiple perspectives', 'I can't decide', 'I'm torn between'. Do NOT trigger on simple yes/no questions, factual lookups, or casual 'should I' without a meaningful tradeoff (e.g. 'should I use markdown' is not a council question). DO trigger when the user presents a genuine decision with stakes, multiple options, and context that suggests they want it pressure-tested from multiple angles.

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 designs, products, and features with Steve Jobs' standards: ruthless simplicity, focus, and end-to-end excellence. Use when the user mentions "Steve Jobs review", "design review", "product review", "what would Steve do", "insanely great", "this feels too complicated", "too many features", "product taste", "saying no", or "is this good enough to ship". Also trigger when critiquing a UI, feature, or roadmap for focus and simplicity, cutting scope to the essential, or pressure-testing the whole experience from first run to daily use. Covers the simplicity audit, the no list, design-is-how-it-works, end-to-end ownership, demo culture, and a Jobs-style review protocol with binary verdicts. For visual design fundamentals, see refactoring-ui. For usability audits, see ux-heuristics. For detail polish, see microinteractions.

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 verification of finished work. Treats any "done" as a set of claims, then re-runs the claimed verifications, diffs what actually changed, detects weakened tests and false completion claims, and delivers an evidence-based verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH CAVEATS / REFUTED). Use after any agent or model claims work is complete - "/fable-judge", "judge this work", "verify what it did", "did that actually work?". Also runs the fable-method trap suite against a skill or model via "/fable-judge suite TARGET".

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。