「decision」の検索結果

A platform decision framework for experimentation. When to use Statsig vs PostHog vs GrowthBook vs Optimizely vs Amplitude vs Eppo vs Kameleoon. How to migrate between them. How to coordinate when multi-platform is genuinely warranted. The decisions that compound for years and the ones you can defer. Triggers on which experimentation platform, choose Statsig vs PostHog, evaluate experimentation tools, switch experimentation platform, migrate from Optimizely, consolidate experimentation tools, multi-platform experimentation, experimentation platform decision, ab test platform selection, feature flag platform vs experiment platform, warehouse-native experiments, vendor lock-in experimentation. Also triggers when a team is asking about cost, governance, or migration cost across experimentation tools, or when an evaluation is starting.

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。

How to read experiment results without fooling yourself. Confidence intervals, p-values, multiple testing, sequential testing, CUPED, heterogeneous treatment effects, ratio metrics, network effects, dashboard reconciliation, and the interpretation failures that produce confidently wrong shipping decisions. Use this skill whenever the user is reading a finished experiment result panel and about to make a ship, kill, or iterate decision, or when an experiment number does not match the dashboard number. Triggers on read experiment results, result panel, ship or kill decision, p-value, confidence interval, statistical significance, multiple testing, peeking, sequential testing, CUPED, variance reduction, heterogeneous treatment effects, ratio metric, network effects, inconclusive test, experiment versus dashboard mismatch. Use `experiment-design` instead when the test has not run yet and the question is hypothesis, sample size, duration, or what to test.

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。

Turning research artifacts into actionable PM insight. Customer interviews, user research notes, support ticket reviews, sales call transcripts, survey data, in-app feedback, all synthesized into the decisions they are meant to inform. The discipline of moving from raw discovery data to clear product direction without losing signal in the synthesis or fabricating insight that was not actually there. Triggers on research synthesis, customer interview synthesis, user research analysis, discovery readout, research insights, sales call analysis, support ticket analysis, qualitative data analysis. Also triggers when a team has done research but cannot turn it into decisions, when synthesis is producing pretty decks but no roadmap movement, or when an upcoming PM decision needs to be grounded in research already conducted.

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。

Designing interactive calculators (ROI calculators, pricing estimators, savings projections, mortgage calculators, custom assessments) that deliver real decision-support value while serving as lead magnets and qualified-traffic generators. Honest about vanity-calculator (no real value), lead-trap (hides the answer behind email), and transparent-decision-tool (gives the result and earns the email through tiered value) patterns. Triggers on calculator, ROI calculator, pricing estimator, savings calculator, custom calculator, interactive tool, decision tool, financial calculator. Also triggers when an audience needs a calculation-driven lead magnet, when a vanity calculator is producing leads but no qualified ones, or when a calculator is being scoped for the first time.

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 discipline for designing experiments (A/B tests, multivariate, holdouts) so the results actually answer the question you asked. Hypothesis writing, sample size, duration, segment analysis, running discipline, matching a result to a pre-committed decision rule, and the common failure modes that produce confidently wrong shipping decisions. Use this skill whenever the user is planning a test that has not run yet: framing a hypothesis, sizing the sample, setting duration, choosing guardrails, or deciding whether something is worth testing at all. Triggers on design an experiment, experiment plan, A/B test, split test, multivariate test, holdout, experiment hypothesis, sample size, minimum detectable effect, MDE, test duration, guardrail metric, no peeking, pre-committed decision rule, is this worth testing. Use `experimentation-analytics` instead when the test has already run and the question is how to read the result panel.

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。

Audits AI-assisted legal, compliance, governance, and institutional decisions before reliance to determine whether the responsible human or institution has enough access to the evidence, reasoning basis, uncertainty, authority, and review path to genuinely own the decision rather than merely approve, sign, or transmit 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。

Structure a decision or design challenge through multiple perspectives before committing to action. Use as a synthesis step after scoping, mapping, and dilemma navigation when a group needs a wiser next step.

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 says 'cognee store', 'push to cognee', 'save to graph', 'remember this' or 'log this decision', or when session decisions must be stored. Writes entities, decisions and events over POST /api/v1/remember.

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。

Turns a hard product or career decision into a one-page decision memo with the eigenquestion, options, pre-mortem with kill criteria, reversibility rating, a named decider and a review date. Use when you ask 'how should we decide', 'should we build or kill this', 'one-way door or two-way door', 'run a pre-mortem', 'we keep going in circles', 'quit or pivot', or want to grade a decision doc. Draws on 396 insights from 177 Lenny's Podcast guests, led by Annie Duke, Shreyas Doshi and Shishir Mehrotra.

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。

Deliberate-choice procedure for a medium-to-high-stakes engineering fork — when the first plausible solution (the instinct, the default next-token pull) would be costly to get wrong. Fires AUTONOMOUSLY: invoke proactively whenever a fork fits, never wait to be asked — mechanical triggers include a fix failing for the 2nd-3rd time, adding a dependency, schema/migration design, deleting or deprecating things others depend on, changing a public API, choosing an architecture or stack. Refuse the premature collapse: hold real options open (urge · contrarian · synthesis · out-of-box · intuitive dots · precedent · first-principles), ground each branch in at least one fact from outside the model (codebase, docs, benchmark, spike), future-model consequences (blast radius, reversibility, maintenance, pre-mortem), collapse by deliberate choice, then try to refute the winner before acting. Log the decision and rejected branches in docs/decision_logs/. Not for routine calls — a decision worth more than one forward pass.

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。

Provide data-driven decision support for construction. Analyze multiple factors and recommend optimal project decisions.

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。

Provides weighted scoring, rubrics, and decision-threshold patterns. Use when designing quality gates, evaluation systems, or decision frameworks.

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。

Contract for the project decision journal (tradeoffs and lessons-learned logs). Use when recording a decision, tradeoff, or lesson, or building a consumer hook.

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。

Reconstruct and report long-running or multi-turn research, architecture questions, reviews, decisions, completion results, and status as a clear, self-contained brief. Use when a reader must re-enter earlier context, understand the real question and its relationships, distinguish verified facts from judgment and open evidence, or make a decision without reconstructing the work log. Quote the relevant original user wording before substantive analysis, keep one coherent main line, use spatial diagrams when relationships matter, and finish with an explicit decision boundary and practical next step.

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。

Comprehensive patterns for creating, maintaining, and managing Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) that capture the context and rationale behind significant technical decisions.

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。

Implements profiling restrictions for children under GDPR Recital 71, Article 22, UK AADC Standard 12, and COPPA. Covers prohibition of behavioural advertising to children, recommendation algorithm limitations, nudge technique prohibition, and automated decision-making safeguards. Keywords: profiling, children, behavioural advertising, recommendation algorithm, AADC, automated decision.

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。

Guides compliance with Australia's Privacy Act 1988 including the 2024 reform amendments. Covers automated decision-making transparency, children's privacy code, individual rights expansion, enforcement strengthening, and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs). Keywords: Australia Privacy Act, APPs, OAIC, automated decisions, children privacy code, privacy reform.

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, extract, or convert an ADR (architectural decision record) using the ADR template. Use when creating new ADRs, extracting an ADR from existing documentation, converting a document into an ADR, recording an architecture or design decision, or updating the status of an existing ADR. Does not create or update enforceable coding standards or conventions — use coding-standard for that. Does not write feature or system documentation — use project-documentation instead.

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。

Grounded in first principles, rigorously examine and refine a user's plan, task, decision, goal, strategy, proposal, or idea through structured, progressively deeper questioning, in order to bridge the gap between the User and the Agent. Use when the user explicitly requests grilling, challenge, pressure-testing, cross-examination, red-team review, pre-mortem analysis, or a decision audit. The goal is to uncover unclear objectives, hidden assumptions, contradictions, weak evidence, missing information, overlooked constraints, dependencies, risks, trade-offs, failure modes, and misalignment between intended outcomes and likely real-world results. Begin by establishing a shared understanding of the user's actual intent, goals, constraints, and success criteria. Ask focused, high-leverage questions rather than broad or repetitive ones. Adapt each question based on previous answers, probing deeper where uncertainty, unsupported assumptions, or strategic weaknesses remain. Regularly summarize the current understanding of the user's intent and position to confirm alignment, expose misunderstandings, and refine the problem or goal definition. Distinguish facts, assumptions, hypotheses, and unknowns. Challenge reasoning rigorously while remaining constructive, respectful, and solution-oriented. Continue until the reasoning is internally coherent, evidence-aware, constraint-conscious, risk-assessed, and translated into a clearer, more actionable goal, decision, or plan. Ultimately, achieving the super-alignment.

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。

Make technology decisions for every product capability by discovering existing assets, evaluating vendor-aligned options, and categorizing as Reuse/Extend/Build/Buy/Integrate/Research during PRD v0.5 Red Team Review. Handles both greenfield and brownfield contexts. Triggers on "tech stack", "build or buy?", "what technologies?", "technical decisions", "what do we reuse?", "existing stack", "vendor constraint", "IBM-first", "what tools do we need?", "evaluate solutions", "select tech stack". Consumes FEA- (features), SCR- (screens), RISK- (constraints). Outputs TECH- entries with decisions, rationale, and cross-references. Feeds v0.6 Architecture Design.

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。

Greenfield project architecture + harness scaffolding for AI Agent productivity. Interview-driven decisions → requirements.md → execute. Produces: Code Structure (vertical slice exemplar), Test Infrastructure, Guard Rails, conditional extensions, AND Harness (CLAUDE.md with domain/team context, rules, skills, hooks). L2: architecture decisions, L3: harness setup, L4: requirements + harness decisions (tasks generated later by /execute into plan.json). Use when: "/scaffold", "scaffold", "new project", "set up project", "프로젝트 세팅", "초기 구조"

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, triages, flags and rates a piece of text with a probability for every option: which department or queue a ticket goes to, which intent a message expresses, whether a yes/no condition holds (is this tool call grounded, should the agent ask first, is the customer angry), and how severe or urgent it is on a rubric, each with a calibrated confidence. Runs Claude Haiku in the request and response shapes of OpenAI's Decisions API, for when no purpose-built decision model is at hand. Use for "route this ticket", "triage these", "classify with a confidence", "give me a probability that", "rate the severity", "score against this rubric", guardrail checks before a tool call, or "a Decisions API without OpenAI".

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。

Brainstorms and debates approaches, then drives toward an actionable decision. Use whenever someone needs a thinking partner for a decision they're facing: 'discuss', 'debate', 'brainstorm', 'weigh options', 'tradeoffs', 'should I do X or Y', 'help me decide', 'I'm torn between', 'sanity check my thinking', or 'what do you think about'. The user must be asking for help reasoning through a choice — not asking to build, fix, evaluate, plan, or modify something (even if the topic involves this skill itself). Picks the right decision lens, surfaces tradeoffs and blind spots, pushes back when reasoning is genuinely weak, and never implements.

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。

Classify decisions as Hat/Haircut/Tattoo by reversibility. Use to calibrate how much analysis a decision deserves.

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。