708 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Formulates evidence-bounded scientific questions, candidate hypotheses, rival explanations, causal or associational claims, discriminating predictions, measurements, and preregistration-ready analysis plans. Used when turning observations or preliminary findings into transparent, testable research plans without treating hypotheses as facts.
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。
Read one supplied paper closely enough to reconstruct how its authors actually got there, rather than restating what the abstract claims. Use for 精读论文, 讲透这篇论文, 把这篇读懂, 作者为什么这么设计, 这个公式怎么推出来的, paper x-ray, and deep single-paper comprehension before building on, reviewing, presenting, or citing that paper. Recovers the real starting point and the bet the authors placed, separates load-bearing design from decoration, grounds each key formula in a worked micro-example with concrete numbers, and checks how far the evidence actually reaches, including where the authors are confident and where the paper does not report something. Delivers a structured Markdown long-read by default. Not a summary, not a translation, not a peer 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。
Find and verify Nature/CNS-family literature supporting manuscript claims, with claim-to-source mapping and reference-manager export. Use for Nature系列引用、CNS支撑文献、分段补引用 when this journal scope is requested; use broader literature search for unrestricted sources.
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 agent, harness, gateway, MCP workflow, or multi-step automation claims completion and the available traces, checkpoints, approvals, tool calls, or deployment records must be judged without trusting self-reported success.
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 before responding to pressure for agreement, manufactured urgency, authority appeals, or requests to certify unsupported claims; separate evidence from persuasion and state uncertainty.
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 after generating code, after accepting AI suggestions, or when reviewing AI-written modules. Also use when code works but feels brittle, when error handling seems thin, when orphaned resources or missing cleanup are suspected, or when the agent claims done but hidden debt may exist. Catches the specific failure patterns AI agents produce that humans would not.
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。
Find and own a defensible market position. Use when messaging sounds like competitors, conversion is weak despite awareness, repositioning a product, or testing positioning claims. Includes Crawl-Walk-Run rollout methodology and the word change that improved enterprise deal progression.
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。
Three-layer verification pipeline for AI output. Extracts verifiable claims, finds supporting or contradicting sources via web search, runs adversarial review for hallucination patterns, and produces a structured verification report with source links for human 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。
Load when the user asks to add, import, compile, or ingest a research paper/PDF into OpenViking, especially when they mention ov-add-paper, ARA, claims, evidence, figures, tables, or paper-to-OV knowledge resources.
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 content against your brand voice, style guide, and messaging pillars, flagging deviations by severity with specific before/after fixes. Use when checking a draft before it ships, when auditing copy for voice consistency and terminology, or when screening for unsubstantiated claims, missing disclaimers, and other legal flags.
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 PR the way a seasoned maintainer would — build an independent model before seeing the diff, investigate the implementation and history, verify material claims, and return a concise briefing. Use for any PR review, self-review, or re-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。
Router/index for the 15 regulatory & quality-management skills bundled in this plugin (ISO 13485 QMS, EU MDR 2017/745, FDA submissions under QMSR, ISO 14971 risk, CAPA, document control, ISO 27001/ISMS, ISO 42001 AIMS, EU AI Act, GDPR/DSGVO, SOC 2, auditing). Use when a compliance request doesn't obviously match one skill and you need to pick the right one (e.g., 'prepare us for an ISO 13485 audit', 'is my AI system high-risk under the AI Act').
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。
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 AI Management System (AIMS) specialist for compliance teams running internal audits. Three decisions: (1) Where are the gaps against Clauses 4-10 and what do we close first? (2) What goes in the AI risk register and which Annex A controls treat each risk? (3) What's the 12-month internal audit plan that satisfies Clause 9.2? Use when preparing for certification, scoping internal audit cycles, or onboarding AI systems into an existing ISMS (27001) / QMS (13485) program. NOT an executive AI strategy skill (see chief-ai-officer-advisor). NOT EU AI Act compliance (see compliance-team-eu-ai-act).
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 RFP, RFI, RFQ, security questionnaire, vendor questionnaire, or proposal request arrives and the team needs a structured response — parsing multi-section buyer-dictated requirements (MANDATORY vs WEIGHTED vs NICE-TO-HAVE), building a Shipley-method proof-point matrix mapping each requirement to a verifiable proof point, articulating 3-5 win-themes that ladder up across requirements, and producing a Shipley-derived winrate estimate that informs a bid / no-bid / partner-bid recommendation. For Bid Managers, Proposal Leads, Directors of Sales, and Sales Engineers at the response-strategy moment. Surfaces GAP requirements explicitly — never invents claims. NOT free-form proposal narrative authoring, NOT contract redline, NOT marketing collateral.
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 BizOps lead, COO, or process-improvement owner needs to document an end-to-end business process (procurement, employee onboarding, incident handoff, customer-onboarding, claims adjudication) in BPMN-style notation, measure cycle times by stage, surface where work spends most of its time waiting vs. being worked, and quantify the gap between processing time and total elapsed time. Pairs Lean / Six Sigma / Theory-of-Constraints canon with deterministic stdlib-only Python tools to produce a process map, a ranked bottleneck list (with severity + root-cause hypothesis), and a cycle-time analysis (P50, P90, value-add ratio, Little's-Law throughput). Distinct from sales-pipeline, system-reliability (SLO), and strategic-OKR work — this is tactical process documentation for internal operations.
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 asks to deeply read a book, article, PDF, or document set; extract claims and evidence; build a knowledge map; or learn through Feynman explanation and recall. Covers quick, deep, map, Feynman, and whole-book reading modes.
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。
Assess whether furniture fits in a measured Pascal room or layout. Use this skill for sofa, table, bed, cabinet, appliance, staging, placement, collision, clearance, or rotated-footprint questions. Produce a tool-backed spatial report that distinguishes footprint fit from unsupported height, door-swing, assembly, and delivery-route claims, and return insufficient evidence when dimensions or scale are missing.
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。
Recipe: write platform-native social content for Kortix (LinkedIn posts, X threads, carousels, Instagram, TikTok, Reels and Shorts video scripts, content calendars) and repurpose one long-form piece into many. Load kortix-brand first for voice, positioning and claims. This skill covers platform mechanics: limits, hooks, cadence, repurposing. Use when the user asks for a LinkedIn post, Twitter or X thread, carousel, social calendar, "what should I post", "repurpose this", a video hook, a reel or short-form video.
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 research agent skill. Use when the user needs thorough, scientific, truth-seeking research on any topic -- investigating claims, finding primary sources, synthesizing evidence, producing cited reports. Triggers on: 'research this', 'investigate', 'deep dive', 'find sources', 'what does the evidence say', 'literature review', 'fact check', 'analyze the research on', any request requiring multi-source investigation with citations.
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。
Build, audit, and improve harnesses that make AI coding agents reliable: AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md instruction files, feature/state tracking, verification gates, scope boundaries, session handoff, memory persistence, context budgets, tool-permission safety, and multi-agent coordination. Use this whenever a coding agent is unreliable across sessions — forgets context, drifts out of scope, claims "done" before tests pass, or starts each session inconsistently — or when creating or assessing AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, feature_list.json, init.sh, progress.md, or session-handoff files. Reach for it even if the user never says the word "harness."
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 analysis deploying parallel expert agents to stress-test ideas, strategies, and plans — decomposes into atomic claims, attacks them, then steelmans and counter-argues, producing severity-ranked findings with remediation. USE WHEN red team, attack idea, counterarguments, critique, stress test, devil's advocate, find weaknesses, break this, poke holes, strongest objection. NOT FOR collaborative debate to find best path (use Council).
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。
Zero-context verification that every number, comparison, and scope claim in the paper matches raw result files. Uses a fresh Codex reviewer with no prior context; base output is same-family provisional. Use when user says "审查论文数据", "check paper claims", "verify numbers", "论文数字核对", or before submission to ensure paper-to-evidence fidelity.
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。
Persistent research knowledge base that accumulates papers, ideas, experiments, claims, and their relationships across the entire research lifecycle. Inspired by Karpathy's LLM Wiki pattern. Use when user says "知识库", "research wiki", "add paper", "wiki query", "查知识库", or wants to build/query a persistent field map.
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 experiment integrity before claiming results. Uses fresh-agent GPT-6-Astra review (same-family provisional in the base Codex mirror) to check for fake ground truth, score normalization fraud, phantom results, and insufficient scope. Use when user says "审计实验", "check experiment integrity", "audit results", "实验诚实度", or after experiments complete before writing claims.
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。