「claim」の検索結果

Analyze undirected cycle structure within a valid DAG using the source paper's orientation and contraction method. Use for cycle-basis analysis with explicit graph and reduction choices. NOT for directed feedback loops, workflow deadlocks, or runtime resilience 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。

Design modern, intuitive DAG/workflow visual editors that feel like LEGO, not LabView NOT for runtime DAG admission, graph execution, or claiming usability without user testing.

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。

Threat-models protocols where authority, scarce resources, bonds, bounties, escrow, reputation, ordering, adjudication, or settlement create strategic incentives. Use to test attack utility, conservation, collusion, Sybil resistance, oracle capture, griefing, custody, liquidity, and residual risk. NOT for choosing payment or bond amounts without evidence, smart-contract code audit, legal or employment classification, DeFi trading, admitting workers, or settling 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。

Designs or reviews provenance-bound DAG attempt traces, coverage gaps, cancellation, and unknown-effect reconciliation. NOT for claiming execution completeness, deployment monitoring, or root-cause proof.

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 or audit the cross-layer Harbor cooperative editor: Loro replicas for humans and agents, governed edit claims, salvage authority, and transport across shared, LAN, and remote harbors. Use when a change spans editor collaboration, identity, recovery, or transport contracts. For a single GPUI pane use gpui-rust-console; for motion use rust-gpui-motion; for a shader use gpui-shaders. NOT for non-collaborative screens, web editors, or generic Rust development.

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 normalized, machine-readable "work receipt" that answers what changed, why, by whom, and with what validation, for any AI-coding-agent task regardless of backend (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Aider, CI, or homegrown). Use when defining a receipt schema, normalizing heterogeneous agent logs into one evidence shape, gating PR merges on artifact-backed proof, or designing an OSS maintainer's fast-reject/fast-merge workflow. NOT for validating a DAG node's output against its own schema (use output-contract-enforcer), continuous runtime monitoring of a live coordination daemon (use runtime-verification-for-agents), or general Port Daddy claims/notes/salvage mechanics (use port-daddy-agent-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。

Designs and verifies fail-closed continuation of a living durable agent after its VM, process, provider session, backend, or context window disappears. Use for body leases, generation fencing, cold-birth failure, process GC, native resume, cross-harness rebodiment, resurrection capsules, capability translation, ambiguous-effect reconciliation, and capacity-aware handoff. NOT for reviving an intentionally retired identity, generic disaster recovery, copying credentials or raw transcripts, ordinary process restart, or claiming metaphysical continuity.

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。

Verify every visual-evidence artifact (screenshot/GIF/recording) attached to a PR carries a provenance manifest binding it to real daemon-backed truth — daemon port, run id, transcript head hash, agent node id, commit, and an honest real/fixture/mock source label — and that operator-control-panel PRs cover the required set of proof states. Use when gating a PR's proof artifacts before merge, auditing whether a "LIVE" visual claim is backed by a real daemon run versus a reused or fixture-backed mock, or defining the required state-coverage set for a control-panel change. NOT for the capture technique itself — headless Playwright, `screencapture -x -l`, non-interruptive capture (use port-daddy-agent-skill's visual-evidence doctrine), designing the receipt body schema an artifact attaches to (use agent-work-receipt-designer), or the broader dogfood/Potemkin product-quality bar (use multi-agent-authoring-product-bar).

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。

Frame multi-agent designs through explicit environment, autonomy, information, coordination, commitment, incentive, and verification assumptions. NOT for endorsing multi-agent architecture without need or claiming runtime correctness from conceptual methods.

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。

Architecture and systems design for agents that retain bounded state across sessions. Covers durable event history, owned state, derived memory, retrieval indexes, framework evaluation, recovery, deletion, and rebuild behavior. Uses constructed implementation examples and workload calibration rather than universal vendor, latency, similarity, retention, or cost claims. Activate on: "always-on agent", "persistent agent architecture", "episodic memory system", "agent memory design", "long-running agent", "stateful agent", "agent that remembers", "MemGPT architecture", "Letta deployment", "/always-on-agent-architecture". NOT for: choosing what data to feed the agent (use always-on-agent-inputs), brainstorming applications (use always-on-agent-applications), safety and privacy concerns (use always-on-agent-safety), general agentic patterns (use agentic-patterns).

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 or review a declared control-command profile and its verb/backend lifecycle matrix. Distinguish policy denial, unsupported capability, delivery acknowledgement, independently observed effect, and unknown outcome; bind authorization to principal, target, scope, current policy, expiry, and fencing epoch. NOT for claiming runtime correctness, proving an adapter from declarations, or approving a control-panel button without independent runtime 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。