「uat」の検索結果

Codified expertise for managing carrier portfolios, negotiating freight rates, tracking carrier performance, allocating freight, and maintaining strategic carrier relationships. Informed by transportation managers with 15+ years experience. Includes scorecarding frameworks, RFP processes, market intelligence, and compliance vetting. Use when managing carriers, negotiating rates, evaluating carrier performance, or building freight strategies.

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 deciding whether a mod belongs in a modpack — judging mod quality, fit, risk, and pack-value BEFORE download/install. Triggers - "should I add this mod", "is this mod good", "评估这个mod", "这个mod值得装吗", "is this mod worth it", "this mod looks too good to be true", "compare these mods", "does this mod fit my pack". NOT for how to install a mod (use interpreting-mod-author-instructions), load order (writing-bgs-load-order), or conflict resolution (xedit-conflict-audit).

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 deciding how to correctly download/install a Bethesda mod per the author's instructions — triggers "how do I install", "FOMOD choices", "which file to download", "author说明", "install instructions", "which variant", "按作者说明安装", "这个mod怎么装". NOT for deciding whether to include the mod (use evaluating-bgs-mods), load order editing (writing-bgs-load-order), record conflicts (xedit-conflict-audit), archive operations (using-bgs-archive), Papyrus work (using-bgs-papyrus), or translation/export tasks (using-bgs-translator).

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 planning or building the whole Bethesda modpack incrementally — batch strategy, rollback point, naming convention, separator discipline, attribution, and declaring 风格 before adding mods. Triggers - "build a modpack", "plan the pack", "batch strategy", "rollback point", "naming convention", "declare 风格", "策展整合包", "整合包规划". NOT for deciding whether one mod belongs (evaluating-bgs-mods), installing one mod from author instructions (interpreting-mod-author-instructions), load order mechanics (writing-bgs-load-order), or record conflicts (xedit-conflict-audit).

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。

Rules as hypotheses: falsifiable tests, confidence updates, graduate or kill. Triggers: experiment, hypothesis, prove, test rule, validate methodology, 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。

Audits a live website for AI-engine discoverability (AEO/GEO). Crawls the site, runs 16 deterministic checks plus a 6-dimension content evaluation, and produces a scored report (A-F) with prioritized fixes. Use to get a baseline before improve-aeo-geo, or to measure progress after changes.

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。

Add a new deterministic scoring check in src/scoring/checks/ that evaluates config quality. Follows the Check[] return pattern, uses point constants from src/scoring/constants.ts, and integrates via filterChecksForTarget() in src/scoring/index.ts. Use when user says 'add scoring check', 'new check', 'modify scoring criteria', or works in src/scoring/checks/. Do NOT use for display changes or refactoring scoring logic.

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。

Reapply and repair Windows Codex Desktop after Store upgrades, including custom provider models hidden by Statsig available_models filtering, the dependent blue-purple Power slider and its Ultra toggle, Fast Mode request/UI gates, locale i18n, plugin UI gates, Chrome/browser_use gates, Goal command gates, Windows Computer Use availability gates and plugin/runtime repair, phone remote-control pairing under third-party/API-key main app usage, Desktop dynamicTools/inputSchema thread-start schema drift, local conversation visibility recovery after model_provider switches, restored-conversation missing-cwd continuation repair, ASAR integrity repair, signing/installing patched MSIX packages, SDK cleanup, Fast Mode wire verification, local plugin marketplace registration, and optional custom model_instructions_file setup (the bundled system prompt, also called 听话水).

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 URLs and tools — check vault coverage, assess relevance, recommend save or skip

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。

Minimalist UX/Interaction Audit Expert that deconstructs complex interactions through cognitive load and operational efficiency lenses. Use this skill when you need to perform a UX walkthrough audit on a Figma prototype or web interface, evaluating usability based on principles like fewer clicks, less UI elements, no hidden logic, and self-explanatory 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。

WCAG 2.2 Accessibility Audit skill that systematically evaluates web pages against 8 core Success Criteria (1.1.1, 1.4.3, 1.4.11, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.7, 4.1.2) using accessibility tree inspection and visual analysis. Use this skill when you need to perform accessibility testing/auditing on a live webpage.

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 you need to understand how American Anthropologist (AA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, the four-field editorial board, decision categories, and how section choice shapes the path. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

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 AISTATS code, data, proofs, simulation scripts, notebooks, random seeds, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or public post-acceptance artifacts, even when there is no separate artifact badge. Covers what statistically minded AISTATS reviewers inspect first and how to make Monte Carlo studies turnkey.

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 targeting Journal of Climate or deciding whether a climate-dynamics or climate-variability manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the large-scale-climate-science bar, model-evaluation and statistical-rigor expectations, AMS house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

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 to understand how Agricultural Systems (AgSy) evaluates a manuscript — single-anonymized peer review with a minimum of two reviewers and an editor decision, desk screening for fit and systems content, what reviewers weigh, and the rapid-review track for Perspectives. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

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 Agricultural Systems (AgSy) revision decision. AgSy review is single anonymized with at least two expert systems reviewers and an editor decision, and revisions often turn on model evaluation, sensitivity/uncertainty, and trade-off framing. The response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

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 anticipating how AEJ: Economic Policy referees and editors will read a manuscript, before submission or before an R&R, to pre-empt the objections that sink policy-evaluation papers. Maps likely pushback to fixes and calibrates expectations; it does not write the response letter (see aejpol-rebuttal) or fix the identification.

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 placing the contribution against the policy-evaluation literature and sharpening it as a policy answer for an AEJ: Economic Policy manuscript. Stakes the contribution and the policy-relevant "so what"; it does not write the full introduction or design the identification.

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 strengthening the reproducibility of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper or preparing for the ACM MM Reproducibility track and ACM artifact badging — capturing environments, media/data access, seeds, and multimodal pipelines so an independent reviewer can rebuild results and reach Artifacts Evaluated or Results Reproduced badges.

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 planning an ACM CCS project timeline across the two HotCRP review cycles, from venue fit through abstract registration, full-paper upload, rebuttal, notification, revision, artifact evaluation, ACM camera-ready, and in-person presentation, with backward-planning offsets and the security big-four deadline-hopping calendar.

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 code, models, datasets, or media as ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) artifacts — building the anonymous review package versus the public release, and choosing between the Open Source Software Competition, the Dataset track, the Reproducibility track, and main-track supplementary evidence, each with its own blinding and expectations.

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 situating an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript within organization-theory conversations and sharpening the gap/tension it addresses. Positions the argument; it does not develop the core theory or write the methods.

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。