「adversarial」の検索結果

Adversarial design critique of the current work — render it, look at it, and argue for rejection. Run after the gates are green, never instead of them.

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 build a page, screen, landing page, website, app or UI from a request - the whole job, end to end. Use this for "design a landing page", "build a settings screen", "make me a website", "design the onboarding", "ออกแบบหน้าเว็บ", "ทำหน้า landing", "ออกแบบ UI", "ทำแอป". It runs the pipeline no single skill covers: the house doctrine, a written Brief Inference so the result is not the statistical mean, a committed visual direction, tokens, build, the objective gates, then an adversarial critic. Hands off to data-dashboard for dense data screens, redesign for existing UI, and image-to-code when a reference image is given.

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。

A-share sector research: computes board-wide Top N gainers, cross-checks week/month announcement windows across two sources, and grades market-sentiment evidence (L1–L3), via parallel Agent Team execution with fresh-context adversarial verification. Use for 「XX 行业 Top N/Top 10 标的」, 「这些标的最近一周/一个月发过哪些公告」, 「判断 XX 行业/板块现在的市场情绪」, or 「用 Agent Team 做行业投研」/对抗验证行业研究结论。

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 adversarial due-diligence on a benchmark the user envies — a founder, KOL, company, or product whose success looks inflated — splitting marketing bubble from real signal, then mapping the validated playbook onto the user's own resources. Use for 尽调/对标/拆解 a competitor, 抄/偷师 their playbook, or suspecting 水分/泡沫 in claims. Prefer over deep-research when debunking inflated claims, not a neutral briefing.

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。

Trigger: judgment day, judgement day, dual review, adversarial review, juzgar. Run explicit blind dual review with at most two scoped fix/re-judgment rounds.

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。

Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".

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 a large, multi-session goal (e.g. shipping a whole side product) through the full V-model closed loop, one phase at a time, with cross-session state and a final north-star acceptance gate. Ultragoals never downgrade the lane: every phase runs CP-1→CP-6 with adversarial verification. Opt-in: invoke with /ultragoal or by calling something a long-running goal. Ordinary work does not run this.

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 revising an ACM CCS paper for a precise threat model, calibrated attack/defense claims, 12-page ACM sigconf compression, double-blind wording, adaptive-evaluation honesty, and the security house style that survives an adversarial SIGSAC program committee.

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 or auditing ACM CCS experiments, attack demonstrations, adaptive-attack defense evaluations, security measurements, baselines, overhead and cost reporting, ablations, and claim-to-evidence fit, with emphasis on evidence that survives an adversarial program committee rather than leaderboard wins.

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 explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM proceedings outcomes.

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 drafting an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused replies aimed at the meta-reviewer.

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 senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck: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。

Fully automated ship workflow: pre-flight, merge base, run tests, coverage audit, pre-landing review, design review, adversarial review, version bump, CHANGELOG generation, TODOS.md update, bisectable commits, push and PR creation, auto-sync docs via document-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。

Multi-AI second opinion via OpenAI Codex CLI. Three modes: Review (pass/fail gate), Challenge (adversarial edge-case finder), Consult (freeform with session continuity). Read-only with streaming output and thinking traces. Cross-model analysis when review has already run.

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-landing PR review with two-pass checklist. Pass 1 critical: SQL safety, race conditions, LLM trust boundaries, enum completeness. Pass 2 informational: side effects, magic numbers, dead code, test gaps. Adversarial review auto-scaled by diff size. Scope drift detection.

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 for AI-generated legal content. Use when fact-checking legal documents, validating citations, detecting hallucinations, scoring document quality, or assessing distribution readiness.

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。

This skill should be used when the user asks to "scan AI systems for security threats", "check for prompt injection vulnerabilities", "assess model security posture", "detect data poisoning risks", or "audit AI/ML pipeline security".

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 thinking partner that stress-tests plans, prepares board meetings, and surfaces blind spots. Use when you need plan validation, board prep, hard-decision frameworks, or pre/post-mortem failure 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 the user wants to test their LLM/agent application for safety and security vulnerabilities — jailbreaks, prompt injection, PII extraction, harmful content generation, or evaluator gaming. Also use when the user mentions security testing, adversarial testing, red teaming, safety evaluation, ASR (Attack Success Rate), or "is my app safe to deploy." Outputs ASR paired with over-refusal rate and an audit document.

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 needs to design evaluation datasets, create test cases, stratify samples, generate adversarial examples, extract eval dimensions from traces/specs, or build a labeled evaluation set. Also use when the user mentions test data design, eval coverage, difficulty stratification, synthetic data generation for eval, or "how to create good evaluation data." Outputs datasets in OpenJudge-compatible format.

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。

Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty, nonobviousness, utility, and soundness framework, connector-aware research, claim-specific tests, and a sustainable adversarial pass. Produces a self-contained green-, yellow-, or red-light report. Use when a law professor or law student asks whether a claim is viable, novel, publishable, preempted, useful, worth pursuing, or better than competing topics; or wants a thesis stress-tested, narrowed, repaired, or compared. No connector is required: use connected legal and scholarly research when available, public sources otherwise, and disclose any no-research fallback.

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。

Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."

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。

Claude skill that turns Claude into a Connecticut-specific divorce planner — nine operating modes from pre-flight intake to post-judgment modification, modeled on Untangle.us's feature surface and grounded in C.G.S. Title 46b, Practice Book Chapter 25, and the 2026-08-01 CCSG schedule. Covers eligibility triage (nonadversarial under § 46b-44a vs standard), financial affidavit (JD-FM-6), child support (JD-FM-220 / CCSG-1 / 1A), alimony (§ 46b-82 fourteen factors), parenting plan (with GAL/AMC escalation under JD-FM-224), settlement agreement (JD-FM-172, TCJA-aware), filing packet (marshal 12-day rule, $360 + $50 fees, JD-FM-75 waiver), and post-judgment motion practice. Hard UPL gate: refuses non-CT, domestic violence (refers CTCADV 1-888-774-2900), hidden assets, courtroom advocacy. Heppner-aware: AI prompts are not privileged. First family-law skill in the Lawvable registry.

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。