「accuracy」の検索結果

Performs alchemical free-energy calculations including relative binding free energy (RBFE / FEP+) and absolute binding free energy (ABFE) via OpenFE, FEP+, GROMACS, AMBER pmemd, and OpenMM with explicit lambda scheduling, soft-core potentials, MBAR/BAR analysis, cycle-closure validation, and protocol-appropriate enhanced sampling. Compares ML alternatives (Boltz-2 affinity, DeepDock). Use when ranking analogs by binding affinity beyond docking accuracy, performing prospective lead optimization, or validating SAR predictions.

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。

Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.

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。

Computes multi-constellation Global Positioning System (GPS) or Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positions from RINEX v3 data using rinexread, gnssmeasurements, receiverposition, and gnssoptions. Filters by constellation, elevation mask, C/N0, and observation code. Reports DOP, scatter RMS, and satellite count. Use when processing GNSS data, computing positions from RINEX files, analyzing accuracy, comparing constellations, or evaluating satellite geometry. Do NOT use for carrier-phase RTK/PPP, IMU fusion, orbit propagation, NMEA streaming, or RINEX v4.

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 tabular data end-to-end in MATLAB — load a dataset, prepare and clean it, select promising classifiers, train them, and compare accuracies with cross-validation, holdout, or hyperparameter optimization plus statistical tests. TRIGGER when: user asks to classify tabular data, pick classifiers for a dataset, compare classifier accuracy, run cross-validation or a holdout evaluation, or find the best model with statistical uncertainty. DO NOT TRIGGER when: user has non-tabular inputs (images, sequences, time series), wants a regression model, is training a specific neural network architecture (use matlab-train-network), or wants cost-sensitive learning or an arbitrary class-prior vector (this skill only supports the built-in uniform-prior toggle for imbalanced 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。

Reduce defensive writing in drafts and revisions by removing unnecessary caveats, disclaimers, hedges, apology-like framing, negative self-limiting statements, and over-explanations while preserving necessary scope, accuracy, safety, legal, ethical, and methodological limits. Use when drafting or revising academic writing, papers, essays, abstracts, introductions, contribution statements, discussions, conclusions, technical explanations, grant writing, product writing, policy writing, professional reports, or any text the user wants to be clearer, stronger, more direct, more concise, more confident, less verbose, less caveated, less apologetic, or less defensive.

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。

Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.

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。

Pre-publish QA framework for content. Brief adherence, voice consistency, fact accuracy, structure and clarity, AI-content audit, SEO and AEO compliance, internal linking and schema validation, QA at scale via sampling, the QA workflow, and the discipline that distinguishes catch-problems QA from checkbox QA. Triggers on editorial QA, content review, pre-publish review, content audit, content QA process, AI-content audit, hallucination check, content sampling, programmatic QA, voice consistency check, brief adherence check. Also triggers when a content team is shipping sloppy work, when AI-co-authored content is reaching publish unaudited, when a QA process burns reviewers out, or when a programmatic SEO set needs sampling discipline. On a voice consistency check, this skill owns checking a draft against an existing voice system at the publish gate; use `brand-voice` when the voice system itself needs defining or documenting.

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。

Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, update or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.

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。

Ultra-compressed communication mode (lite / full / ultra) that cuts token usage ~75% by speaking like caveman while keeping full technical accuracy. Use when the user requests "caveman mode", "less tokens", "be brief", or when output budget is tight.

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 the agent's own recent outputs for quality and accuracy

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。

Prevent 此地无银三百两式 residue: finalize artifacts without echoing rejected session-only alternatives into labels, metadata, commits, PRs, or handoffs. Use after corrections or discarded proposals. Not for ordinary deletion, deprecation, migration, or exclusions materially required for safety, accuracy, compatibility, audit, quotation, or requested comparison.

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。

Detect documentation drift against code changes, score staleness, validate API docs via AST parsing, and audit link integrity. Use when docs fall out of sync with code, preparing releases, running CI doc gates, or auditing doc accuracy.

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。

Analyzes pipeline coverage, tracks forecast accuracy with MAPE, and calculates GTM efficiency metrics for SaaS revenue optimization

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 fable-mode execution discipline on Claude Fable 5.1 — the top of the escalation ladder and the strongest staged run available. Routes the task to the @fable-orchestrator agent with its model overridden to Fable (`model: "fable"`), which stages the work, delegates artifact production to @fable-worker-sonnet / @fable-worker-haiku, and cold-checks deliverables with @fable-verifier. Trigger when the user explicitly asks for thorough/systematic/"deep work" handling on the strongest model ("fable on fable", "stage this on fable", "deep work mode, fable", "run this on 5.1"), or when a fable-opus run reports the task exceeds Opus's ceiling. Benchmarked 2026-09-02: zero correctness delta on Fable 5.1 at ~1.1× tokens, ~2× wall — a provenance runner, not an accuracy runner. Do NOT use for ordinary single-pass tasks — prefer fable-opus, fable-sonnet, or fable-haiku when the task doesn't need peak reasoning. Fable is plan-included; bulk work still routes down-tier.

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 a BibTeX file for hallucinated or fabricated references by cross-checking every entry against CrossRef, arXiv, and DBLP. Reports each reference as verified, suspect, or not found, with field-level mismatch details (title, authors, year, DOI). Use when the user wants to check a .bib file for fake citations, validate references in a paper, or audit bibliography entries for accuracy.

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 wants to compare or benchmark multiple LLMs/agents arena-style but it's unclear which specific workflow fits — a general-purpose win-rate comparison on a custom task, or a benchmark specifically about reference/citation hallucination rate. Also use when the user mentions model arena, agent arena, pairwise model comparison, win-rate ranking, or comparing models on a task and hasn't specified whether that task is generic or about citation accuracy. This skill is the entry router for the arena-eval suite: it asks one diagnostic question when needed, then recommends the workflow or workflows needed to cover the request.

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 wants to build an evaluation system for an LLM/agent application but doesn't know where to start — they have traces, prompts, RAG pipelines, or nothing at all. Also use when the user mentions evaluation, eval, benchmarking, testing LLM quality, measuring agent performance, assessing RAG accuracy, or wants to compare prompts/models. This skill is the entry router: it asks diagnostic questions then recommends which sub-skill (local workflow) to use next.

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。

Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT REVIEW — reviewing an existing agreement for risk, deviations from standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks. Contract review is a COMPOSITE skill (extraction + reasoning + redlining + conflict-detection), so this routes by the dominant sub-task. Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/ language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to review this contract / NDA / MSA", "best AI to redline", "route this contract review", or is about to review an agreement without a fixed 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。

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL INFO EXTRACTION — pulling facts, clauses, dates, parties, obligations, and structured fields out of contracts and legal documents. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Info Extraction; CUAD/MAUD/ACORD). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to extract clauses/data from these documents", "best AI for contract data extraction", "route this extraction task", or is about to pull structured fields from legal docs without a fixed 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。

Pick the right LLM for LEGAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS — issue-spotting, rule application, case/statute analysis, memos, and multi-step agentic research. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 benchmarks (Vals AI LegalBench across 124 models; Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark for agentic work). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model for legal research / case analysis / a memo", "best AI for legal reasoning", "route this research task", or is starting legal analysis without a fixed 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。

Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT DRAFTING — generating, redlining, or rewriting contract language from instructions. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks (legalbenchmarks.ai Contract Drafting). Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/ stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model should I use to draft this clause/agreement", "best AI for drafting contracts", "route this drafting task", or is about to generate/redline contract text and hasn't fixed a 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。

Adversarial verification of AI-generated legal content with systematic fact-checking, source validation, and quality control. Use when a user asks to verify, fact-check, red-team, validate sources, or quality-control a legal document, briefing, compliance summary, or regulatory analysis before it is distributed to clients, stakeholders, or published. Trigger phrases include "verify", "fact-check", "red team", "red-flag", "check accuracy", "validate sources", "quality control", "is this correct", and "review for errors". Produces a structured verification report with severity-categorized errors, verified sources, unsupported claim list, missing disclaimers, and an explicit distribution-readiness assessment.

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。

Routes any legal task to the right LLM, like OpenRouter but for legal work and grounded in benchmarks instead of brand loyalty. Built from mid-2026 legal evals (legalbenchmarks.ai, Vals AI × Stanford LegalBench across 124 models, Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark, the Atticus Project's CUAD/MAUD/ACORD) plus translation evidence (WMT25, SwiLTra-Bench, ArabLegalEval). Covers five verticals: contract drafting, info extraction, legal research, contract review, and legal translation (including Arabic/MENA). Each asks up to four questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/language), then returns a primary model, a fallback, what to avoid, and what a human must verify. Core principle: capability is not controllability, so every route ends with a verification step. Not legal advice; a lawyer owns the output.

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。

Mandatory external verification workflow for ALL non-trivial factual claims before presenting them as true. This skill MUST be used whenever Claude is asked to research any topic, answer factual questions, provide current information, draft documents containing factual claims, give legal advice or cite legal authority, discuss current events or public figures, provide technical or scientific information, state statistics or data points, or answer ANY question where the answer could have changed over time. Also trigger when the user asks Claude to 'check', 'verify', 'confirm', 'research', 'look up', or 'find out' anything, or when the user needs information that requires freshness, precision, or source accuracy. This skill overrides any default tendency to answer from memory. If a task involves stating facts, citing sources, or providing current information — use this 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。