「verdict」の検索結果

Prove that a command-line tool actually did what it said, instead of trusting its exit code and its output. Snapshots the filesystem before and after, names the expected consequence in advance, and returns one of four verdicts with what could not be seen. Use after running a build, a migration, a scaffolder, a formatter, a codegen step, or an AI coding CLI; when a command printed success and you are about to report "done"; when you are about to write "exit code 0, so it worked"; or when a tool claims it edited files. Needs nothing installed.

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。

Install, instrument and verify this running web app from the inside (DOM, network, routing, console and framework state) instead of screenshots or guessing. Drives one real flow end to end and returns a verdict with the file:line to fix. Use when the user asks to set up or install Reticle, when a user-facing change needs proving before you call it done, when a test passes but the UI is broken, or when the user types /reticle.

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 that a web app change actually works by driving the running app from the inside (DOM, network, routing, console, framework state) instead of screenshots or guessing. Use after any user-facing change, when a fix is claimed but unproven, when a test passes but the UI is broken, or when you need a real verdict rather than "looks right". Also use to install and wire up Reticle in a project that does not have it yet.

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。

Check that a change to a web app actually works in the running app before calling it done. Drives the real page and returns a pass/fail verdict with the request that fired, the state that moved, and the file:line to fix. Use after editing a component, a form, a route, or an API call; when you have said "fixed" but have not opened the app; when the user asks "does it actually work?"; or when a change looks right on screen and you cannot prove 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。

Verify claims, quotations, citations and references against live primary sources, and produce a reproducible audit record instead of an assertion. Use when asked to: check whether a quotation, verse, statistic, date, attribution or citation is accurate; verify references before publishing a report, thesis, article, slide deck or legal filing; confirm a text against an authoritative database; cross-check a claim across independent sources; build a citation register or verification appendix; find out whether two datasets agree; detect a misattributed or fabricated quotation; or audit a document's existing citations. Source-agnostic by design, with working providers for REST/JSON APIs, scraped HTML, bulk corpora, bibliographic catalogues (OpenLibrary), DOI resolution (Crossref) and reference works (Wikipedia) -- including scriptural tiers (Qur'an.com, sunnah.com and an independent hadith corpus) with full diacritic handling for Arabic, Hebrew, Greek and any script with optional marks. Covers content-addressed matching when sources disagree on numbering, graded match verdicts, byte-level integrity checks, published-string verification, and a catalogue of silent failure modes (identifier divergence, mojibake, scraper blocking, false-positive keyword rules, missing glyphs, unreliable PDF text layers).

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 SPEC, INNOVATE, or VALIDATE (Layer 2) approach hinges on an unverified runtime/library/external mechanism: run a probe from the 8-family taxonomy and produce a VIABLE/NOT-VIABLE/INCONCLUSIVE VERDICT artifact.

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 a business plan from the perspective of the solo founder who has to actually execute it. Asks the brutal operational questions: Can I build this with my time budget? Can I keep it running? Will my cashflow survive? Outputs a verdict — SHIPPABLE NOW / SHIPPABLE WITH DESCOPE / NEEDS HIRE / WRONG STACK. Use when a plan looks great on paper and you want to know whether a solo operator can actually execute it. Triggered by: 'operator review', 'can I actually do this solo', 'execution reality check', '操盘视角', '我能不能干得动'.

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 a business plan or product strategy through the eyes of a smart-money seed/Series-A investor. Asks the brutal questions: Is this fundable? What's the moat? What's the exit story? Outputs a verdict with one of four modes — SEED VIABLE / LATER ROUND ONLY / BOOTSTRAP-ONLY / UNFUNDABLE. Use when the user has a business plan and wants to know if it would survive an investor pitch. Triggered by: 'investor review', 'is this fundable', 'VC perspective', '投资人视角'.

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 a business plan from the perspective of the named target customer. Asks: would they actually pay this price for this solution today? Outputs a verdict with one of four modes — PAY NOW / PAY WITH FRICTION / WOULDN'T PAY / WRONG ICP. Use when the user has a defined ICP and pricing and wants to stress-test whether the value prop survives contact with reality. Triggered by: 'customer review', 'would they pay', 'pricing reality check', '客户视角', '会付费吗'.

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 all four review skills (investor, customer, operator, skeptic) on a business plan in sequence, then auto-decide where verdicts agree and surface only disagreements + taste decisions to the user. One command = full review gauntlet, intelligently filtered. Use when a plan is ready to be stress-tested before commit. Triggered by: 'panel review', 'review panel', 'run all reviews', 'review gauntlet', '审议会', '四方评审'.

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 a business plan from the perspective of a hostile devil's advocate. Asks: what kills this in month 6? What's everyone politely not mentioning? Outputs a verdict — EXISTENTIAL RISK / SOLVABLE RISKS / LOW-RISK / WRONG QUESTION. Use after the investor/customer/operator reviews are done, as the final gauntlet before committing real time and money. Triggered by: 'skeptic review', 'devil's advocate', 'what would kill this', 'red team this', '泼冷水', '杀手在哪'.

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 existing table permissions on a Power Pages site by analyzing them against site code and Dataverse metadata, then GRADES the configuration with deterministic 1–5 scores across 3 security/usability/correctness categories (9 dimensions). Detection is anchored by a recurring-issue catalog so findings and severities stay consistent run-to-run. Generates an HTML report with an at-a-glance verdict and per-category scores in the Overview plus a single list of **major/minor** issues (each major issue labelled permissions-only or upstream-caused with a short justification), and suggested fixes. Use when the user wants to review, verify, check, score, or grade table permissions for security issues.

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 finished Scenario assets have to give something back: a caption for a dataset or alt text, a reusable style description, a verdict against a brief, a canny, depth, pose, or segmentation control map for the next model, or the asset itself found again by text, tags, or visual similarity and filed into a collection. Keywords: caption, describe, analyze, QA, control map, find similar, reverse image search, semantic search, tag, collection.

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。

Structured multi-round debate between AI tools with proposer/challenger roles and verdict

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 Agent Relay or Ricky workflows that must loop review, fix, and validation with fresh agent context until independent signoff agents, typically Claude and Codex, both agree the work is comprehensively complete. Covers fresh-context iterations, repairable gates, dual reviewer verdict contracts, iteration-count reporting, PR signoff comments, and blocked-state handling.

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 an application or system — including one built quickly with AI coding agents — needs a security review with regulatory grounding: a STRIDE threat model, a LINDDUN privacy threat model, a dependency exposure screen against live CVE / CISA-KEV / EPSS data, or a selected, non-exhaustive screen of which EU security obligations (GDPR, NIS2, Cyber Resilience Act, AI Act) may apply and which need determination. Orchestrates the server-enforced threat-modeling workflows of the Ansvar Gateway MCP connector and grounds every regulatory statement in officially published text fetched at answer time — scope, role, and application-date limits stated, never a compliance verdict. Never simulates a workflow and never answers legal questions from model memory.

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。

Audit an AI agent skill before installing it. Use proactively whenever the user is about to add, install, enable, or evaluate an unfamiliar skill — including phrases like "audit this skill", "is this skill safe", "scan skill before install", "check skill for malicious code", "review this plugin", or any pre-install gate on an untrusted, third-party, or community-distributed skill bundle. Runs ten categories of static checks (code execution, network exfiltration, credential harvesting, persistence, prompt injection, supply-chain hooks, obfuscation, destructive filesystem ops, secrets, Trojan Source / homoglyphs) and emits a PASS / WARN / FAIL verdict.

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 an attorney-facing knockout/availability trademark search across the United States and Canada. Use whenever a user (founder, client, or attorney) asks whether a brand, mark, name, logo, slogan, or product name is "available," "free to use," "clearable," or "already taken" — or asks Claude to "search the trademark register," "check USPTO," "check CIPO," "do a knockout search," "clearance search," "availability search," or "see if [mark] is trademarked." Trigger even when the user phrases it casually ("can I call my company X?", "is this name taken?"). Covers federal USPTO (TESS/TSDR), federal Canada (CIPO), common-law/web/state, and WIPO Madrid international. Output is a knockout availability memo with green/yellow/red verdict for attorney review. Includes professional-responsibility gating (AI-use disclosure, conflict check, scope confirmation) before substantive analysis. Not legal advice — produces work product for attorney sign-off.

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。

Verifies UK case-law citations, pinpoint references and quotations against the official public register — The National Archives' Find Case Law — and statutory references against legislation.gov.uk, before a document that cites them is relied on, served or filed. Every check returns a graded verdict: VERIFIED, MISMATCH (the citation resolves to a different case — the classic AI miscitation), NOT ON REGISTER, OUTSIDE COVERAGE (the register cannot answer — absence proves nothing), or UNCHECKABLE (a law-report citation). The grading exists because there are two ways to get this wrong: citing a case that does not exist, and accusing a real case of not existing. Use when asked to check citations, verify a case exists, confirm a quotation is verbatim, check a pinpoint paragraph, audit a draft's authorities, screen a document for hallucinated cases, or check a statutory provision is in force. Not a substitute for reading the judgment: existence is not authority.

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。

Post-hoc verification and trust audit of AI-generated factual and interpretive claims. Classifies claims by type and salience, routes them to domain-appropriate sources, scores trustworthiness on a tiered scale with an Interpolated verdict for plausible-but-unsupported detail, and assesses rhetorical fairness on interpretive claims. Designed for clinical-negligence and healthcare-law practice in England and Wales, with general applicability beyond.

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 premortem for England & Wales civil litigation - builds the strongest version of a case, then attacks it from four angles to find where it loses before opposing counsel does. Runs an adversarial premortem on a UK litigation matter. Builds the strongest version of the case, then attacks it from four angles — procedural, substantive, evidentiary, strategic — to find where it actually loses. Returns a ranked stress-test brief: failure scenarios, evidence inconsistencies, blind spots, mitigations, and one brutal one-sentence verdict. Use before issue, before settlement negotiations, before a litigation-funder pitch, or before deciding whether to take a case.

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 game with evidence on its selected target runtime. Launch the actual build and prove real rendering, input, the core loop, at least one designed outcome, restart, and explicit limitations without dressing subjective fun up as a certain verdict. Use for test a generated game, QA a game build, check whether the game is fully playable, or verify the build. 游戏证据化质量验证。在选定的目标运行环境中启动实际构建，证明真实渲染、输入、核心循环、至少一个设计结果、重开和明确限制，不把主观趣味包装成确定性结论。用于测试生成游戏、检查游戏能否完整游玩或验证构建。

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 or recalibrating game balance: build a source-driven Monte Carlo balance lab (Rust + rayon) that extracts live game data, simulates human playstyles (AFK→pro), emits win-rate/economy verdicts with confidence intervals, and bruteforce-tunes parameters. Trigger on unfair levels, unreachable shops, farm exploits, interest-curve cliffs, post-content recalibration, or CI balance JSON diffs. Keywords: balance lab, Monte Carlo, win rate, difficulty curve, economy career, playstyle simulation, Resource extraction, GDScript parser, bruteforce tuning.

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。

Implement ReasoningBank adaptive learning with AgentDB's 150x faster vector database. Includes trajectory tracking, verdict judgment, memory distillation, and pattern recognition. Use when building self-learning agents, optimizing decision-making, or implementing experience replay systems.

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。