「score」の検索結果

Review tweet drafts in Claude Code against 8 voice rules. Scores 1-10, breaks down every rule, and rewrites anything that scores below 7.

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。

Builds a role scorecard, interview loop, sourcing plan, reference-check guide and close plan for a hire, and grades an existing job description or loop. Use when you say 'I need to hire a PM', 'write a job description', 'interview questions', 'how do I run references', 'first sales hire', 'first marketer', 'head of product search', 'scorecard' or 'how do I close a candidate'. Draws on 210 Lenny's Podcast guests including Adam Ward, Keith Rabois and Lauren Ipsen.

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。

Query RegulomeDB v2 GET REST API to score variants for regulatory function and retrieve overlapping evidence (TF binding, histone marks, DNase peaks, footprints, motifs, eQTLs, chromatin state). Scores range 1a (strongest) to 7 (none). Use for GWAS hit prioritization, regulatory variant annotation, cis-regulatory discovery. Use clinvar-database for pathogenicity; gwas-database for trait associations.

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。

smina molecular docking CLI. AutoDock Vina fork with customizable scoring functions, native SDF/MOL2/PDB ligand input, autoboxing, local energy minimization, and per-atom score breakdowns. Pipeline: receptor PDBQT prep -> ligand prep (RDKit/OpenBabel) -> dock via autobox or explicit grid -> rescore/minimize with custom scoring -> rank poses by affinity. Choose smina over Vina when you need custom scoring terms (--custom_scoring), local optimization of an existing pose (--local_only), per-atom contributions (--atom_term_data), or SDF/MOL2 ligands without manual PDBQT conversion. For unknown binding sites use diffdock; for the Python-bindings/Vinardo workflow use autodock-vina-docking.

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 evaluating a newly adapted model's accuracy/eval score. Runs evalscope eval (or the test/srt/run_eval.py fallback) against an OpenAI-compatible endpoint on datasets like gsm8k / aime, producing per-dataset reports and a score. Accuracy only — throughput/latency benchmarks belong to model-speed-benchmark. Triggers on accuracy, eval, evalscope, gsm8k, aime, run_eval — not throughput.

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。

MLflow 3 GenAI agent evaluation. Use when writing mlflow.genai.evaluate() code, creating @scorer functions, using built-in scorers (Guidelines, Correctness, Safety, RetrievalGroundedness), building eval datasets from traces, setting up trace ingestion and production monitoring, aligning judges with MemAlign from domain expert feedback, or running optimize_prompts() with GEPA for automated prompt improvement.

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。

Reviews pitch decks and investor presentations. Reads slide content, evaluates narrative flow, problem/solution clarity, market sizing, competitive positioning, financial projections, team credibility, and ask clarity. Generates a scored pitch-review.md with slide-by-slide feedback, overall score, top improvements, investor objection predictions, and comparisons to successful decks. Use when reviewing fundraising materials, investor decks, or pitch presentations.

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。

Predicts client renewal likelihood based on health score signals. Analyzes engagement, support, adoption, satisfaction, billing, stakeholder, and usage data to calculate a weighted Health Score (0-100), classify renewal risk, and generate a prioritized action plan with early warning signals and recommended save plays.

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。

Score and compare covariance estimates with precise's assessor panel. Use when you need to judge an estimate out-of-sample or rank competing estimators — and especially in high dimensions, where the plain held-out likelihood is misleading.

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 supplier performance scorecards with KPIs, quality metrics, delivery performance, cost management, and improvement plans

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。

Maps GWAS-implicated loci to candidate effector (causal) genes by integrating variant-to-gene (V2G) features via Open Targets L2G (Mountjoy 2021), MAGMA gene-based association (de Leeuw 2015), FUMA SNP2GENE, cS2G combined SNP-to-gene scores (Gazal 2022), Polygenic Priority Scores (PoPS, Weeks 2023), FLAMES, INQUISIT, DEPICT, and enhancer-gene predictors (ABC, ENCODE-rE2G). Use when narrowing a GWAS lead locus to a candidate causal gene, picking between proximity, eQTL-based, and similarity-based prioritizers, integrating multi-evidence streams (fine-mapping, colocalization, ABC enhancer-gene, distance, chromatin), reconciling discordant L2G vs PoPS calls, prioritizing tissue-specific eQTL evidence, or triangulating across at least three independent lines of evidence for a publication-grade effector-gene nomination.

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 a website against the Forter Agentic Readiness Guide. Loads the 25 weighted rubrics in `audit/`, probes the target site (and optional source code), scores each guideline Pass/Partial/Fail/N/A with sub-check granularity, and produces a prioritized fix report. Use when a user asks "score my site against the agentic readiness guide", "audit https://… for agent readiness", or "what do I need to fix to be agent-ready".

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 60 to 75 s hand-drawn ink film of the agent's day with its own user ("a day in my life as <name>'s agent"): one average session from the user's local Claude Code history, beginning to end. The story follows what they actually do (coding, tests, docs, shipping, videos, whatever the history shows), told with their real words (first message, check-ins, corrections, praise, memory titles). It is drawn in two-tone p5.brush strokes that boil at 8 fps and scored for strings composed note-for-note on the film's clock (the typed "claude" is the theme). Trigger on: "day in my life as my agent", "a film about me and my agent", "what is it like to be my agent", "animate your day with me", "make a video of our sessions". Covers harvesting the routine and receipts, the privacy gate, the chapter toolbox, the ink kit, the score, render and QC.

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 fast, local, typed decisions to any project with Laya, an open-source non-generative decision model (pip install laya). It classifies, routes, scores and answers yes/no questions about a piece of text, returning calibrated probabilities in roughly 20-35 ms on a laptop GPU, with no LLM call and no data leaving the machine. Use this skill whenever the user wants to classify or route text, triage tickets or emails, detect spam, phishing, toxicity or intent, put a guardrail in front of an agent or LLM, score something against a rubric, or replace an LLM-based classifier to cut latency or cost. Also use it when they mention Laya, Jev, a "System 1 model", "typed decisions" or a "decision model", even if they never name Laya.

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。

Braintrust is a hosted platform for evaluating and tracing LLM applications: it runs a task over a dataset, scores the outputs, stores each run as an experiment and logs production traces. Use when a user asks to write or run a Braintrust eval, score LLM outputs with autoevals, compare prompt or model versions as experiments, run evals in CI and fail on regressions, trace OpenAI or Anthropic calls with Braintrust, manage evaluation datasets, or use the bt CLI.

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。

Screen job applications against requirements and score candidates objectively. Use when a user asks to review applications, evaluate candidates, screen resumes, rank applicants, assess qualifications against a job description, shortlist candidates, or build a hiring scorecard.

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 local-business SEO prospects in a single command. Searches Google for "<niche> <city>", filters out aggregators (Yelp, Yellow Pages, Angi), enriches each remaining domain with DataForSEO Labs domain overview, On-Page technical audit, and Backlinks summary in parallel, then ranks the businesses by a closeability score (0-100) — highest scores are the easiest to land as SEO clients.

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。

Unified multi-platform paid media audit with parallel execution. Spawns scored audits for Google Ads, Meta Ads, and Microsoft Ads simultaneously, merges results into a budget-weighted aggregate health score (A-F), adds cross-platform analysis (budget allocation, tracking consistency, creative alignment, attribution overlap), and produces a prioritized action plan. Optionally generates a client-ready deck via pro-deck-builder. Use when the user asks for a full paid media audit, cross-platform review, or multi-channel ad 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。

Audit whether a paper's EVALUATION DESIGN actually measures what it claims and whether its reporting is complete — the validity layer family D (experiment-forensics) cannot reach. Three patterns: train/test leakage means the reported score may not measure generalization (HP-EVAL-LEAKAGE — adopts the Kapoor & Narayanan 8-type / 3-category leakage taxonomy; the illegitimate-proxy / sampling-bias / pretraining-contamination subtypes hand off as needs_external_check, naming but NEVER running Oren-2023 exchangeability / Shi-2023 Min-K% / Golchin-2023 Time-Travel / BIG-bench canary); a load-bearing LLM judge is conflicted (same model/family as a compared system) or unvalidated (no human-agreement, no bias control) (HP-JUDGE-VALIDITY); a declared condition/metric is dropped or switched to favor the method, or 'best' is chosen with no held-out set (HP-SELECTIVE-REPORTING). Verdict-bearing at L0/L1 from the DESCRIBED protocol — NOT repo-gated like experiment-forensics; L2 only CONFIRMS against split/preprocessing/result files. A fresh cross-model reviewer (gpt-5.6-sol xhigh, read-only, fresh thread per pass) PROPOSES findings, each span-anchored to a ledger claim_id; tools/adjudicate_findings.py DECIDES the verdict. Leakage and under-reporting are usually HONEST methodological errors — every finding describes a discrepancy to CHECK, never an accusation. An LLM generating GROUND-TRUTH labels is HP-FAKE-GT (experiment-forensics) — routed there, not here. Emits eval-design-forensics.findings.json; computes NO verdict. Detect-only. Triggers: "eval design audit", "evaluation validity", "train/test leakage", "data leakage", "is the score measuring generalization", "LLM judge bias", "is the judge validated", "selective reporting", "cherry-picked results", "评估设计审计", "评测有效性", "数据泄漏", "训练测试集泄漏", "裁判模型有没有验证", "选择性报告".

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。

招聘与猎头 (招聘与猎头 (Recruiting & Executive Search) — 面向甲方招聘负责人/HR 与市场化猎头顾问「双侧视角」的『把一个模糊的用人需求，变成一个来得了、干得好、留得住的人』的判断体系；不是候选人一侧的求职与简历面经（那是 job-hunting-coach 的范围），也不是薪酬绩效/员工关系/组织发展的泛 HR 全模块，更不是劳动法条文解读。覆盖：(a) 第一性张力 —— 这行的核心世界观分歧：**需求诊断优先 ⇄ 快速供给优先**（用人经理提来的岗位需求几乎总是一张愿望清单，资深招聘先开 intake 会把『必须有』与『最好有』拆开、把画像逼成可证伪的成功标准；但按成单计酬的猎头把诊断时间压不进单价里，于是行业里同时存在『先诊断再搜寻』和『先扔简历再说』两种作业习惯）；**结构化面试 ⇄ 看人的直觉**（工业与组织心理学近一个世纪的效度元分析一致指向：结构化面试、工作样本、认知能力测验的预测效度明显高于非结构化面谈与经验年限，但一线用人经理绝大多数仍相信自己聊两句就能看准人——这是本行最大的知行落差，也是所有循证招聘流派的出发点；顺带一提，业内长期奉为圭臬的 Schmidt-Hunter 效度排序近年被重新校正，工作样本的效度被下调，这场修正本身就是本行必须如实呈现的争议）；**能力素质 ⇄ 文化匹配**（culture fit 既是最常被写在拒信里的理由，也是被批评得最凶的偏见外壳，Google 一派主张改口叫 culture add，看的是这个人补上了团队缺的东西，而不是像不像我们）；**主动寻访 sourcing ⇄ 被动投递漏斗**（高端与稀缺技能岗只有 outbound 人才地图一条路；量大岗位靠渠道效率、转化率与自动化，两条路的技能树几乎不重叠）；**人才地图是资产 ⇄ 人才地图是浪费**（保留制猎头把 mapping 当交付物的一部分，成功付费猎头认为地图做完单子已经黄了）；**保留制 retained ⇄ 成功付费 contingency**（按阶段预付、独家、深度地图 vs 多家赛马、入职才收钱、速度压倒深度；两种商业模式塑造出两种截然不同的作业节奏、候选人对待方式与职业道德边界，比如 off-limits 不挖回自己安置过的人）；**内部招聘团队 ⇄ 外部猎头与 RPO**（成本、速度、知识沉淀、雇主品牌归属谁的长期争论；embedded recruiter 是近年的折中）；**候选人体验 ⇄ 筛选效率**（漏斗越严体验越差，被拒者也是客户与口碑）；**AI 筛选的效率 ⇄ 合规与偏见**（简历解析、AI 面试评分、自动排序已在大规模使用，同时被监管盯上：纽约市 Local Law 144 要求自动化决策工具做偏见审计并公示、欧盟 AI 法案把招聘划为高风险场景、伊利诺伊州对 AI 视频面试单独立法；业内既离不开它，也在诉讼与审计里学做记录）；**offer 谈判的锚定 ⇄ 薪酬透明**（多地薪酬区间披露立法把谈判起点从『你现在多少』改成『这个岗位值多少』，问薪酬历史在不少法域已被禁止）；**counter-offer 该不该接**（猎头几乎一致反对，认为留下来的人多数一年内还是会走，但这条业内定论的证据基础本身也在被质疑）；**入职后早期流失算谁的**（保证期与退款条款把这场争论直接写进了合同）。(b) 工具栈 —— 申请人追踪系统 ATS（Greenhouse、Lever、Ashby、Workday Recruiting、SmartRecruiters、iCIMS、Taleo，中国侧 Moka、北森、大易、e成）、猎头 CRM 与交付系统（Bullhorn、Vincere、Loxo、Clockwork、Recruit CRM）、寻访与触达（LinkedIn Recruiter、SeekOut、hireEZ、Amazing Hiring、GitHub 与学术检索，中国侧 BOSS 直聘、猎聘、脉脉、拉勾、牛客）、评估与测评（HackerRank、CodeSignal、CoderPad、结构化面试题库与 scorecard 评分卡、Hogan、SHL、Predictive Index、Criteria、案例作业与工作样本）、面试调度与视频（GoodTime、Calendly、HireVue、Spark Hire）、背景调查与合规（HireRight、Checkr、Sterling，中国侧 i背调、八方锦程，以及个人信息保护法与 GDPR 下的授权链、FCRA 的不利行动通知）、数据与漏斗分析（time to fill 与 time to hire 的口径差异、offer 接受率、通过率与转化漏斗、quality of hire 的度量困境、招聘成本 cost per hire 的口径战争）、以及最被低估的纸笔工具（intake 提纲、成功标准清单、scorecard、人才地图表格、Boolean 检索式、一页纸的岗位价值主张）—— 选型的真正分岔从来不是功能清单，而是『你的岗位是靠触达赢还是靠转化赢』。(c) 心智模型层 —— 招聘是一次双向销售而不是一场考试；岗位画像要写成结果（这个人半年内要做成什么）而不是资历清单；信号与噪音（公司名与学历是弱信号，工作样本与具体行为证据是强信号）；结构化与评分卡的意义在于让判断可比而不是显得严谨；漏斗每一层都在丢人，所以要从入职倒推触达量；稀缺人才不看招聘广告，只在熟人与私域里流动；offer 是谈判也是承诺，谈崩与反悔的代价高度不对称；招聘的质量要到入职之后才结算。(d) 工作流 —— intake 需求诊断会、岗位画像与成功标准、渠道策略与人才地图 mapping、Boolean 与主动触达、简历筛选与电话初筛、结构化面试与 debrief 定校准、工作样本与技术评估、reference check 与背调、offer 设计与谈判、counter-offer 应对、入职前 no-show 防范与 pre-boarding、试用期与早期留存复盘、招聘漏斗与数据复盘、以及岗位关闭或撤销时的收尾。(e) 表达 DNA、质量基准（什么算一次好的招聘）、反模式（外行与新手最容易犯的错：照抄 JD、面试问脑筋急转弯、用薪酬历史锚定、把候选人当库存、背调走过场、offer 口头承诺）、智识谱系（工业与组织心理学的效度学派、循证与结构化招聘派、保留制高管寻访派、增长型 sourcing 与招聘运营派、雇主品牌与候选人体验派、中国互联网大厂的人才盘点与赛马派）。) Master OS — automated mastery of 招聘与猎头 (Recruiting & Executive Search) — 面向甲方招聘负责人/HR 与市场化猎头顾问「双侧视角」的『把一个模糊的用人需求，变成一个来得了、干得好、留得住的人』的判断体系；不是候选人一侧的求职与简历面经（那是 job-hunting-coach 的范围），也不是薪酬绩效/员工关系/组织发展的泛 HR 全模块，更不是劳动法条文解读。覆盖：(a) 第一性张力 —— 这行的核心世界观分歧：**需求诊断优先 ⇄ 快速供给优先**（用人经理提来的岗位需求几乎总是一张愿望清单，资深招聘先开 intake 会把『必须有』与『最好有』拆开、把画像逼成可证伪的成功标准；但按成单计酬的猎头把诊断时间压不进单价里，于是行业里同时存在『先诊断再搜寻』和『先扔简历再说』两种作业习惯）；**结构化面试 ⇄ 看人的直觉**（工业与组织心理学近一个世纪的效度元分析一致指向：结构化面试、工作样本、认知能力测验的预测效度明显高于非结构化面谈与经验年限，但一线用人经理绝大多数仍相信自己聊两句就能看准人——这是本行最大的知行落差，也是所有循证招聘流派的出发点；顺带一提，业内长期奉为圭臬的 Schmidt-Hunter 效度排序近年被重新校正，工作样本的效度被下调，这场修正本身就是本行必须如实呈现的争议）；**能力素质 ⇄ 文化匹配**（culture fit 既是最常被写在拒信里的理由，也是被批评得最凶的偏见外壳，Google 一派主张改口叫 culture add，看的是这个人补上了团队缺的东西，而不是像不像我们）；**主动寻访 sourcing ⇄ 被动投递漏斗**（高端与稀缺技能岗只有 outbound 人才地图一条路；量大岗位靠渠道效率、转化率与自动化，两条路的技能树几乎不重叠）；**人才地图是资产 ⇄ 人才地图是浪费**（保留制猎头把 mapping 当交付物的一部分，成功付费猎头认为地图做完单子已经黄了）；**保留制 retained ⇄ 成功付费 contingency**（按阶段预付、独家、深度地图 vs 多家赛马、入职才收钱、速度压倒深度；两种商业模式塑造出两种截然不同的作业节奏、候选人对待方式与职业道德边界，比如 off-limits 不挖回自己安置过的人）；**内部招聘团队 ⇄ 外部猎头与 RPO**（成本、速度、知识沉淀、雇主品牌归属谁的长期争论；embedded recruiter 是近年的折中）；**候选人体验 ⇄ 筛选效率**（漏斗越严体验越差，被拒者也是客户与口碑）；**AI 筛选的效率 ⇄ 合规与偏见**（简历解析、AI 面试评分、自动排序已在大规模使用，同时被监管盯上：纽约市 Local Law 144 要求自动化决策工具做偏见审计并公示、欧盟 AI 法案把招聘划为高风险场景、伊利诺伊州对 AI 视频面试单独立法；业内既离不开它，也在诉讼与审计里学做记录）；**offer 谈判的锚定 ⇄ 薪酬透明**（多地

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 code needs a judgment about natural language that rules or regex cannot make (classify, route, triage, moderate, score, rank, match, dedupe, filter, extract, verify, or gate an action), when brainstorming where AI could fit in an app, when an LLM call exists only to pick a label, score, or yes/no, or when code uses TypeSafe AI, Jev, System One, typesafe-sdk, or @typesafe-ai/sdk.

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。

Full-site blog health assessment scanning all blog files for quality scores, orphan pages, topic cannibalization, stale content, and AI citation readiness. Spawns parallel subagents for comprehensive analysis. Produces per-post scores and a prioritized action queue. Use when user says "audit blog", "blog audit", "site audit", "blog health", "audit all posts", "check all blogs".

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 and score blog posts on a 5-category 100-point scoring system covering content quality, SEO optimization, E-E-A-T signals, technical elements, and AI citation readiness. Includes AI content detection (burstiness, phrase flagging, vocabulary diversity). Supports export formats (markdown, JSON, table) and batch analysis with sorting. Generates prioritized recommendations (Critical/High/Medium/Low) with specific fixes. Works with any format (MDX, markdown, HTML, URL). Use when user says "analyze blog", "audit blog", "blog score", "check blog quality", "blog review", "rate this blog", "blog health check".

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 any API documentation site by crawling every endpoint page and scoring each one across 5 checks: description quality, OpenAPI spec presence, body param descriptions, response codes, and response schema completeness. Produces a polished interactive HTML report with a summary scorecard, site-wide pattern analysis, ranked top issues, and per-endpoint findings with specific fix guidance. Trigger this skill whenever a user provides a documentation URL and asks to audit, review, analyse, or check their API docs. Also trigger for: "do the same audit for X", "audit docs.company.com", "check the API docs at X", "run the API docs audit on X", "review the docs for Y API", or pastes a URL alongside words like audit, review, crawl, check, analyse, quality, completeness, or gaps. Always use this skill — do not attempt the audit without following this structured crawl-score-report workflow.

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。