「hn」の検索結果

When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).

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 changed code for naming, stale references, unnecessary complexity, and comment quality. Use after completing implementation work, before committing, or when the user asks to review or audit code.

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。

Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.

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 GraphQL injection vulnerabilities in a codebase using a three-phase approach: recon (confirm GraphQL usage and find unsafe operation document assembly sites), batched verify (trace user input to those sites in parallel subagents, up to 3 candidate sites each), and merge (consolidate batch results). Requires sast/architecture.md (run sast-analysis first). Outputs findings to sast/graphql-results.md. If no GraphQL technology is found in Phase 1, later phases are skipped. Use when asked to find GraphQL injection, unsafe GraphQL document construction, or operation string injection bugs.

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。

Deep single-page SEO analysis covering on-page elements, content quality, technical meta tags, schema, images, and performance. Use when user says "analyze this page", "check page SEO", "single URL", "check this page", "page analysis", or provides a single URL for review.

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 a feature or initiative through a computed route: the conductor derives the canon delta and assembles the document package — from a zero-document null route for small fixes to an umbrella PRD with one spec per capability for large initiatives. Modes, named as the first word: sdd (full package), sources (MRD → BRD → URD) for market research, customer discovery, and business or user requirements, iso (BRS → StRS → SyRS → SRS) for ISO 29148 and regulated work, research for a technical investigation — never market research — that the research instrument closes either by scope coverage (a research document) or by a recommendation (an rnd). Explicit form: plan research <topic>. Use for 'plan the X redesign', 'create a roadmap', 'plan a new feature', 'I need market research before we plan', 'we're regulated — start the ISO requirements cascade', 'investigate X before we plan', 'compare the alternatives for Y' — a new investigation, not a finished report already in hand. Not for recording a decision or documenting existing code — use /archcore:document. Not for checking docs against code — use /archcore:review.

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。

Generate personalized news intelligence with verified sources (7-day freshness requirement)

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 generated or changed documentation before it ships — READMEs, API references, docstrings, PHPDoc/JSDoc, changelogs, tutorials, and doc sites. Best used reactively after an agent writes or edits docs, after code changes documented behavior, or before publishing docs. Use when the user says 'review the docs', 'is this documentation accurate', 'update the docs', 'write a README', 'document this API', 'add a docstring', or 'add a changelog entry'. Core job: verify every referenced function, flag, endpoint, config key, and code sample against the source; catch docs-vs-code drift; strip filler and unverifiable claims. DO NOT USE for production code review (use clean-code-guard), test review (use test-guard), marketing copy or blog posts, prose style editing of non-technical writing, or documentation site theming.

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 defending the research design of an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript — quantitative (multilevel, IRT, quasi-experimental, RCT), qualitative (case study, ethnography, interview), or mixed methods. AERJ judges each tradition on its own terms against the AERA reporting standards. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.

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 executing and reporting the analysis/interpretation for an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript so it survives expert anonymous review — disciplined ethnographic/qualitative inference, honest interpretation, and (for biological/archaeological work) sound quantitative analysis. Guides analysis and interpretation norms; it does not fabricate evidence or quotations.

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 defending the research design of an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript — fieldwork and participant observation, interview and archival design for ethnographic/qualitative work, material/contextual analysis for archaeology, and appropriate lab/quantitative design for biological anthropology. AA judges each mode on its own terms with reflexivity. Strengthens the design; it does not write code or run fieldwork.

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 the conceptual/theoretical argument of an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript into a four-field contribution — whether the work is ethnographic, archaeological, biological, or linguistic. AA rewards a portable concept and reflexive argument over a bare finding or thick description alone. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses or write fieldnotes.

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 writing the response to an American Anthropologist (AA) revise-and-resubmit. AA uses anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, often with cross-subfield reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident and the ethnographic contribution intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new 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。

Use when choosing and justifying the research design for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — qualitative (grounded-theory, ethnographic, historical) or quantitative — and setting the rigor bar. Designs the study; it does not run the analysis (see asq-data-analysis).

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 an AAAI main technical track submission for OpenReview readiness, double-blind anonymity, page limits, reproducibility checklist, supplementary material, author limits, multiple-submission policy, and AAAI AI-use policy compliance.

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 packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

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 preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact 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。

Use when organizing AAAI supplementary material, including the technical appendix, multimedia appendix, and code/data ZIPs, while respecting that AAAI supplements are due with the paper, treated as immutable after submission, must stay double-blind, and should never hide main-paper-critical evidence from reviewers who skim the appendix.

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。

行业情报雷达：多源扫描(X/即刻/V2EX/HN) → 关键词过滤 → 趋势检测 → 每日情报简报。触发词：行业情报、竞品监控、热点扫描、情报雷达

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。

Extract leads from competitor product activity — Product Hunt commenters/upvoters, HN posts about competitors, case studies, testimonials, tech press, and switching signals. Detects people actively switching from competitors as highest-priority leads.

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。

AI sales coach composite. Analyzes all available sales data — email campaigns, call recordings/transcripts, reply patterns, pipeline outcomes — to identify what the user does well, where they struggle, and how to improve. Finds patterns in top-performing emails, winning call techniques, successful objection handles, and deal progression. Produces personalized coaching recommendations based on their specific product, market, and selling style. Tool-agnostic.

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。

Reverse-engineer a company's sales and marketing tech stack from public signals. Detects CRMs, cold email tools, people databases, ad pixels, email delivery services, and outbound sending domains via DNS records, website source inspection, Apify technology profiling, blacklist checks, and public spam complaint searches. Works on single companies or batches. Outputs a structured markdown report per company.

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 Google Search Ads campaign builder. Performs deep keyword research (competitor SEO, review language mining, Reddit/HN community terminology, site audit), builds keyword architecture with funnel mapping and intent classification, creates ad group structure, generates headline/description variants, builds negative keyword lists, recommends bid strategy, and exports a campaign-ready CSV for Google Ads Editor import.

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。

Calls significant loops from protein-directed and targeted 3C assays (HiChIP, PLAC-seq, Capture Hi-C/PCHi-C, ChIA-PET) where the contact background is peak-anchored and coverage-biased, so generic Hi-C loop callers (cooltools dots, Juicer HiCCUPS) use the wrong null. Covers FitHiChIP (config-driven coverage+distance-decay spline regression, peak-to-peak vs peak-to-all foreground, loose vs stringent background, coverage vs ICE bias), MAPS (positive Poisson regression on bias factors for PLAC-seq/HiChIP), hichipper (restriction-site-distance bias model + library QC), CHiCAGO (Delaporte two-component Brownian+technical background for asymmetric bait x other-end Capture Hi-C), the with/without separate-ChIP anchor decision, and differential loops via diffloop. Use when calling loops from HiChIP/PLAC-seq/Capture Hi-C, choosing FitHiChIP/MAPS/CHiCAGO, picking peak-to-all vs peak-to-peak, setting the loop FDR, supplying ChIP peaks as anchors, QCing a HiChIP library, or comparing loops between conditions.

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。