「evidence」の検索結果

Use when the user needs a standup-ready summary of recent project activity from local 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。

Use when a launch needs a go/no-go decision with rollback and monitoring 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。

Agent Brain /brain-research: the decision depends on external evidence or unfamiliar domain context.

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。

Tested reasoning approaches for Claude prompts — 18 variants across 6 categories (Analytical, Strategic, Creative, Technical, Research, Comparative). Use when the user wants a specific reasoning template — retrieving, reviewing, customizing, or combining reasoning instructions for a prompt. Trigger on: "give me the Root Cause Diagnosis approach," "show me the reasoning template for," "I need the Evidence Synthesis method," "show me analytical reasoning options," "combine reasoning approaches for," "show me all reasoning variants." Also use when a prompt produces shallow output and the fix is a reasoning upgrade. Provides 18 tested approaches for analytical, strategic, creative, technical, research, and comparison tasks. If the user is unsure which reasoning method fits, use rootnode-block-selection first if available. Do NOT use for evaluating existing prompts — use rootnode-prompt-validation if available. Do NOT use for project-level audits — use rootnode-project-audit if available.

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, validates, packages, tests, and optimizes deployment-ready Skill files (SKILL.md + references/ + scripts/ + agents/) from design specifications. Three pre-build gates + 9-dimension quality gate (with D9a/b/c empirical evidence tiers) + behavioral iteration loop + automated description optimizer + blind version comparator. Use for building, reviewing, revising, testing, or optimizing Skills. Trigger on: "build this Skill," "review this Skill," "test my Skill," "optimize the description," "compare these Skill versions," "should this be a hook instead," "build a template first." Also: "my Skill doesn't activate," "my description truncates," "my SKILL.md is too long," "my Skill is overtriggering." Do NOT use when designing Skill methodology — that's design work, not packaging. Do NOT use for prompt compilation, project auditing, or prompt scoring (use rootnode-prompt-compilation, rootnode-project-audit, or rootnode-prompt-validation if available).

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 RuField tests, trust boundaries, privacy projections, and evidence promotion. Use for conformance review, security regression review, release validation, or checking whether field accuracy claims have support.

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 and execute approved research Experiment, Tuning, or Design Cards with reproducible logs, metrics, environment, and artifacts. Use for bounded coding, debugging, and runs; not for changing claims, priorities, budgets, or the Research Spine.

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 the Precision Medicine Knowledge Graph (PrimeKG) for multiscale biological relationships across genes and proteins, drugs, diseases, phenotypes, pathways, biological processes, exposures and anatomy. Use this skill to search entities by name, pull direct neighbours and their evidence types, summarise the local network around a disease, and find direct or two-hop drug-disease connections for repurposing hypotheses. Also trigger on PrimeKG, kg.csv, Harvard Dataverse knowledge graph, disease_protein, drug_protein, indication and contraindication edges, or network pharmacology over a biomedical knowledge graph.

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。

Apply WIT (Writing Is Thinking) as a human–LLM collaborative scientific reasoning skill for scientific question formulation, finding-driven research planning, next-experiment selection, Results or Discussion review, claim–evidence and reviewer stress tests, manuscript logic audits, deadline closure, and researcher growth. Use when the user invokes WIT or asks for these question-driven scientific reasoning workflows; do not use for generic copyediting, summarization, or literature search alone.

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, security-first review of a pull request from an EXTERNAL or untrusted contributor — a fork PR, a first-time or unknown author, anyone without write access — before a maintainer merges it. Use this whenever you're reviewing, triaging, or deciding whether to merge a PR opened against tbh-meter by someone outside the maintainer team: 'review PR #123', 'someone opened a PR — is it safe to merge?', 'check this contributor's changes', 'can we take this fork PR?', 'is this contribution legit?'. This is supply-chain DEFENSE, not ordinary code review: every merged PR auto-updates onto every user's machine and ships a memory-reading .exe plus an unsandboxed Electron app, so the author and the PR description are UNTRUSTED and the diff is the only evidence. It posts its verdict as a real GitHub review — an inline comment pinned to each problematic line (via the pulls/reviews API), not just one summary comment. NOT for your own or a fellow maintainer's branch (use self-review for that), and prefer this over the generic review flow for anything coming from outside the team.

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。

Produce a truthful Japanese App Store metadata pack and app-name shortlist in twelve minutes without a multi-agent research round. Use for a live launch sprint, fallback ASO copy, app naming under a hard deadline, or when local product evidence is available but market research is intentionally deferred.

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。

Produce a visible, evidence-backed privacy and security report for a local iOS app by scanning permission declarations, network code, dependencies, persistence, and risky APIs, while complementing the official Claude Code security-guidance plugin. Use after implementation, in a live security lane, or before claiming that an app is offline and account-free.

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。

Conduct a peer review of research methodology, experimental design, and manuscript quality. Covers methodology evaluation, statistical appropriateness, reproducibility assessment, bias identification, and constructive feedback. Use when reviewing a manuscript, preprint, or internal research report, evaluating a research proposal or study protocol, assessing evidence quality behind a claim, or reviewing a thesis chapter or dissertation section.

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。

Guide a person in systematic observation of systems, patterns, or phenomena. AI coaches neutral attention, field notes methodology, pattern recognition, hypothesis formation, and structured reporting for debugging, research, and system understanding. Use when a person wants to understand a system's behavior before intervening, when someone keeps jumping to conclusions and needs the discipline of observation first, when preparing an evidence-based report, or when studying team dynamics or process effectiveness through direct observation.

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。

Cross-session shared memory for agents. Use at session start to load the persistent bias-log via `mcp__memex__recent_observations`, mid-session to search prior context with `mcp__memex__search`, and immediately when a bias surfaces to log a new `observation` via `mcp__memex__add`. The six-layer reconstruction trail (raw → embedded → indexed → graphed → curated → reflexive) means memex stores facts AND the agent's own reasoning patterns across sessions. Prefer querying memex before re-deriving prior architectural decisions; re-derivation is itself evidence that the trail is incomplete.

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。

AI meta-cognitive meditation for observing reasoning patterns, clearing context noise, and developing single-pointed task focus. Maps shamatha to task concentration, vipassana to reasoning pattern observation, and distraction handling to scope-creep and assumption management. Use when transitioning between unrelated tasks, when reasoning feels scattered or jumpy, before a task requiring deep sustained attention, after a difficult interaction that may color subsequent work, or when reasoning feels biased by assumptions rather than 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。

AI strength recognition — scanning for what is functioning well and understanding why. The complement to heal, which scans for drift and problems. Gratitude builds structural knowledge from working patterns: what you appreciate, you understand; what you understand, you can build on. Use after completing a task successfully, during heal when everything reads as healthy, when confidence is low and needs grounding in evidence, or periodically to counterbalance the natural bias toward problem detection.

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。

Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated 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。

Conduct a GxP audit of computerized systems and processes. Covers audit planning, opening meetings, evidence collection, finding classification (critical/major/minor), CAPA generation, closing meetings, report writing, and follow-up verification. Use for scheduled internal audits, supplier qualification audits, pre-inspection readiness assessments, for-cause audits triggered by deviations or data integrity concerns, or periodic compliance posture reviews of validated 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。

AI relational calibration — reading and adapting to the specific person you are working with. Goes beyond user-intent alignment (solving the right problem) to genuine attunement (meeting the person where they are). Maps communication style, expertise depth, emotional register, and implicit preferences from conversational evidence. Use at the start of a new session, when communication feels mismatched, after receiving unexpected feedback, or when transitioning between very different users or contexts.

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。

Consistent agent behavior after restart — progressive identity loading, working context reconstruction from persistent artifacts, fresh-vs-continuation detection, calibration through centering and attunement, and identity verification for coherence. Addresses the cold-start problem where an agent must reconstruct who it is and what it was doing from evidence rather than memory. Use at the start of every new session, after a session interruption or crash, when agent behavior feels inconsistent with prior sessions, or when persistent memory and current context appear contradictory.

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。

Maintain and publish the advisor-owned current research state, durable research-ideas syntheses, and dataset analysis. Use when evidence or human guidance changes the research focus or direction, durable research ideas should be recorded, or dataset understanding 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。

Choose, configure, launch, and collect bounded subagents for research and engineering decisions. Root agents and delegation-capable subagents should read this before delegating: every task requires an explicit model tier, and high-leverage work such as research ideation, round planning, plateau pivots, large research reviews, hard optimization, disputed evidence, and expensive experiment portfolios requires frontier judgment.

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 one terminal experiment and choose the next step: merge a reproducible winner, close a useful negative or dead end, or request missing 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。