「tradeoff」の検索結果

Workflow Phase 3 — Research and Solution Exploration. Surfaces 2–4 candidate solution approaches with concrete tradeoffs, grounded in current library docs (fetched through the provider named in `.claude/docs-provider.json`) — never in training-data recall. Output lives at `docs/research/<slug>.md`. Candidate ranking and the memo execute in main context; doc/source gathering MAY be delegated to read-only advisory subagents (seed.md §4.2-A).

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 designing matrix builds (OS x version x dimension), composing reusable workflows, gating jobs on conditions, doing OIDC to AWS/GCP/Cloudflare without long-lived secrets, sharding tests across runners, or fixing cache invalidation. Triggers: workflow_call between repos, fail-fast: false tradeoffs, exclude/include matrix surgery, environment protection rules, OIDC trust policy setup, concurrency cancellation on duplicate pushes, artifact reuse across jobs, conditional job matrices computed at runtime. NOT for GitLab CI / CircleCI / Jenkins (different yaml dialects), self-hosted runner administration, or local act dev.

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 building content-heavy sites with Astro, deciding between SSG/SSR/hybrid, choosing client directives (idle/visible/load/media), structuring content collections with type-safe schemas, integrating React/Vue/Solid/Svelte components in the same project, or migrating from Next.js for marketing/docs. Triggers: client:idle vs client:load tradeoffs, content collections schema with zod, image optimization via @astrojs/image, view transitions, server islands, MDX layouts. NOT for SPA-style apps that need full interactivity (use Next/Remix), Astro internals/plugin authoring, or non-content sites where islands provide no benefit.

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 stakeholders pull a decision in different directions — frames each lens, builds a trade-off matrix, surfaces the cost of every choice — even if the user just says 'PO and ops disagree'.

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 balancing eng-team velocity vs quality vs burnout — on-call load, focus fragmentation, reorg shock. Triggers on 'team is burning out', 'why is velocity dropping'.

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 work is ambiguous or has multiple viable paths; compares options, assumptions, evidence, tradeoffs, and the best next action.

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 work needs deeper thinking, less generic output, repo evidence, tradeoffs, monitoring signals, or stronger quality discipline.

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。

Redesign GitHub README homepages or create project-native pure SVG, hybrid SVG-composed PNG/WebP, and opt-in animated GIF assets. Use when a user asks to beautify, redesign, rebrand, visually upgrade, simplify, or audit a GitHub README; create only a hero, section headers, diagrams, badges, motion graphics, showcase modules, or other README assets; or turn a repository homepage into a cohesive visual story. If whole-README work versus asset-only work is unclear, ask which scope the user wants. For hero-like assets where pure SVG and generated raster material are both viable, explain the tradeoffs and confirm the implementation before creating the asset.

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 a learner has surface understanding and needs to explore mechanism, tradeoffs, edge cases, and production implications at depth.

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 critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first questioning.

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 performance or resource claims on real hardware: benchmark design or review, latency, throughput, memory or headroom numbers, and accept-or-reject decisions on optimizations. Not for refactors with no resource claim.

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。

Interview the user deeply about a plan, probing technical implementation, UI/UX, risks, tradeoffs, and missing decisions before writing or refining a spec. Use when the user says "interview me" or asks to be questioned about a plan.

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。

Load when the user asks for CTO advice on feature strategy, architecture direction, build-vs-buy, infrastructure, market positioning, roadmap, self-hosting, cost, or organizational tradeoffs; not for reviewing an existing implementation-plan workstream.

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 and review paid-media budgets, bidding, pacing, marginal return, forecasts, CPA, ROAS, MER, LTV:CAC, constraints, and allocation across supported platforms. Use for ad budget allocation, media budget, bidding strategy, scaling, spend pacing, budget forecast, ROAS target, or investment tradeoffs.

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 for 'why does X work this way', 'why we picked Y', design rationale, regressions, postmortems, or data-backed thresholds. Discovers available MCPs and queries each evidence category (source control, issue tracker, long-form docs, real-time chat, infrastructure observability, error tracking, product analytics warehouse) in parallel, then returns a cited read on decisions and tradeoffs. Use how for runtime behavior.

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。

Apply when product, UX, or feature-scope tradeoffs come up. Choose user delight over implementation convenience; ship fewer polished features over more rough ones.

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。

Coordinate FriendlyBet company-level strategy, CEO handoff, department orchestration, HR/agent-quality escalation, operating-model decisions, multi-agent synthesis, roadmap tradeoffs, decision rights, quality gates, and updates to the virtual company system. Use when Eyal asks to involve the company, CEO, leadership, strategy, operations, several departments, or named executive agents such as Strategy Director, Chief of Staff, or Operating System Lead.

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。

End-to-end Android indie idea workflow — feature-build phase only (no monetization). Phased — discover (if no idea) → generate 2 candidates → refine scope (offline/online, sharing, MVP vs full, core-value features) → risk/reward/tradeoff analysis when scoping down → emit idea brief. Use for greenfield app concepts, new feature ideation, idea discovery, or pre-design discovery before writing a design document. Triggers — new app idea, feature concept, indie dev brainstorm, validate idea, refine idea, what should I build, find an app idea, idea pipeline, I have no idea, help me find an app idea, scope down, MVP scoping, core value features.

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。

Multi-phase dialectical stress-test for HIGH-STAKES decisions only (architecture choices, irreversible product calls, strategic bets). Heavy-cost skill — do NOT use for routine questions, brainstorming, or simple tradeoffs. User must explicitly invoke or describe a decision they call "high-stakes", "irreversible", or "needs stress-testing". Triggers: "stress test this decision", "dialectic on", "challenge this thesis", "should I really".

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。

Workflow automation is the infrastructure that makes AI agents reliable. Without durable execution, a network hiccup during a 10-step payment flow means lost money and angry customers. With it, workflows resume exactly where they left off. This skill covers the platforms (n8n, Temporal, Inngest) and patterns (sequential, parallel, orchestrator-worker) that turn brittle scripts into production-grade automation. Key insight: The platforms make different tradeoffs. n8n optimizes for accessibility

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。

Calculates statistical power for high-dimensional genomics experiments (bulk RNA-seq, scRNA-seq, ATAC-seq, ChIP-seq, methylation, proteomics) under negative-binomial count models using RNASeqPower, PROPER, and simulation via powsimR, distinguishing per-gene from marginal (transcriptome-wide) power, the role of mean expression and dispersion, and the sequencing-depth-versus-replicate tradeoff. Covers simulation as the honest default for overdispersed counts, FDR-aware average power versus single-test power, observed/post-hoc power as an anti-pattern, and the winner's-curse / Type-S / Type-M consequences of underpowering. Use when planning replicate number for a sequencing experiment, deciding whether to add depth or samples, choosing closed-form versus simulation power, estimating power from pilot dispersions, or justifying replication in a grant. For clinical-trial power see clinical-biostatistics/power-and-sample-size; for the inverse sample-size question see experimental-design/sample-size.

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。

Discover governing equations from data using PySR (evolutionary symbolic regression). Physics-constrained search with dimensional analysis, custom operators, and complexity-accuracy tradeoffs. Use when you need an interpretable equation, not a black-box 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。

Evaluate system boundaries and architectural tradeoffs. Use for architecture decisions, design reviews, and ADRs.

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。

Evaluates and implements age estimation and verification technologies for online services. Covers facial age estimation, digital ID verification, self-declaration with risk assessment, AI-based age estimation, and the accuracy versus privacy tradeoff. Includes ICO guidance and euCONSENT framework. Keywords: age verification, age estimation, facial analysis, digital ID, children, online safety.

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。