「claim」の検索結果

Runs adversarial due-diligence on a benchmark the user envies — a founder, KOL, company, or product whose success looks inflated — splitting marketing bubble from real signal, then mapping the validated playbook onto the user's own resources. Use for 尽调/对标/拆解 a competitor, 抄/偷师 their playbook, or suspecting 水分/泡沫 in claims. Prefer over deep-research when debunking inflated claims, not a neutral briefing.

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 factual claims in documents using web search and official sources, then proposes corrections with user confirmation. Use when the user asks to fact-check, verify information, validate claims, check accuracy, or update outdated information in documents. Supports AI model specs, technical documentation, statistics, and general factual statements.

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。

Write a product listing for an overseas marketplace or store, localised for the buyer rather than translated from Chinese: title, bullet points, description, search terms and the compliance claims that must or must not appear. Use when asked 帮我写亚马逊 listing, 跨境电商标题, write a product listing for Amazon, TikTok Shop, Shopee, Lazada, Etsy or Shopify, or localise my listing for the US, UK, Germany or Japan. Produces the listing in the target language within the platform's field limits, a keyword map, a compliance check of every claim, and a list of images the listing needs.

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 asked 医保怎么报销, 异地就医怎么备案, 住院能报多少, 门诊报销比例, 手工报销要什么材料, 惠民保值不值得买, or work out what China's basic medical insurance (医保) will pay for a treatment. Produces the person's scheme (职工医保 or 居民医保), how a claim works for this case (direct settlement or manual reimbursement), an out-of-pocket estimate built from the city's own deductible, rate and cap, the cross-region registration (异地就医备案) steps, and the documents to keep.

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 vulnerability or security report arrives for triage, when assessing a CVE/RCE/OGNL/injection claim against the code, or when drafting a reply to a security researcher — to research the claim from source without trusting the reporter and without fabricating your own 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。

ALWAYS invoke this skill when the user asks about work done outside this session - "check work", "check the others", "check other sessions" - or to accept one: "the session is done, check it", "can we merge it" - in any language. You are the receiving party: treat the report as a claim, verify each part against machine state, name every gap between claimed and true. Verified-ready work merges in the same pass. End with what is left, one next step, and any reply another session needs, ready to paste.

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 the experiments of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper — matched baselines per modality, ablations that isolate the cross-modal fusion, user studies or QoE measurement where the claim is subjective, dataset and media licensing, and honest compute reporting, so evidence supports a multimedia claim.

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 ACL paper for computational-linguistics house style, covering task-first framing, linguistic examples tied to quantitative error analysis, scoping language claims to tested languages, LLM-era claim discipline, anonymous self-reference, Limitations prose, and compressing into the 8-page or 4-page ACL format.

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 AAAI manuscript for broad-AI-audience fit, a first-page contribution statement legible to non-specialist Phase-1 reviewers, two-column readability, concise novelty claims, reproducibility-checklist alignment, hedged limitations and ethics, and policy-aware framing of AI-system and capability 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。

Use when strengthening AAMAS reproducibility evidence for interaction claims, including proofs and game definitions, opponent and population sets, self-play protocols, random seeds, compute, uncertainty on strategic outcomes, baselines, and consistency between what the paper claims about agents and what the artifact can actually show.

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。

Treats a ctDNA assay as a molecule-counting experiment at the Poisson edge and builds its analytical-validation case the measurement-science way. Covers the genome-equivalent currency (~330 haploid copies/ng), the lambda = input_GE x VAF sampling ceiling (lambda>=3 for ~95% detection), the error-suppression ladder (raw NGS ~1e-3 -> single-strand UMI ~1e-4/1e-5 -> duplex <1e-7), the CLSI EP17 LoB/LoD/LoD95/LoQ framework, the per-locus-vs-panel-integrated LoD distinction that lets bespoke MRD reach ppm, contrived/SEQC2 reference standards, and honest LoD reporting conditioned on input mass + consensus depth + replicate detection rate. Use when stating or trusting a sensitivity claim, designing a dilution-series validation, deciding how many genome equivalents are needed at a target VAF, choosing a single-locus vs panel-integrated LoD, or auditing a "detects 0.1% VAF" claim.

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。

Patent research and IP landscape: prior-art search, claim mapping, landscape analysis, and freedom-to-operate. Use when conducting a prior-art search, mapping an IP landscape, evaluating patentability, or running an FTO analysis.

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 copy claims by script against evidence you give; without it, lists what needs proof. "can we back up these numbers"

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。

No Inference / Source-Locked Verification. Forces Claude to answer ONLY from user-provided materials and/or online sources actually accessed — no inference, no assumptions, no gap-filling. Every factual, legal, numerical, or procedural claim must be anchored to a cited source. Use whenever Claude reviews documents, summarises evidence, checks accuracy, drafts submissions, creates timelines, extracts facts, checks citations, analyses rules, prepares legal arguments, compares documents, verifies claims, produces chronologies, works from uploaded materials, performs legal research, checks case status, or does anything where evidential fidelity matters. Also trigger on: 'source-locked', 'no inference', 'only from the materials', 'don't assume', 'stick to the evidence', 'verify this', 'check this is right', 'work from the documents'. Overrides Claude's default tendency to fill gaps. If evidential accuracy matters, use this skill.

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 verification of AI-generated legal content with systematic fact-checking, source validation, and quality control. Use when a user asks to verify, fact-check, red-team, validate sources, or quality-control a legal document, briefing, compliance summary, or regulatory analysis before it is distributed to clients, stakeholders, or published. Trigger phrases include "verify", "fact-check", "red team", "red-flag", "check accuracy", "validate sources", "quality control", "is this correct", and "review for errors". Produces a structured verification report with severity-categorized errors, verified sources, unsupported claim list, missing disclaimers, and an explicit distribution-readiness 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。

Mandatory external verification workflow for ALL non-trivial factual claims before presenting them as true. This skill MUST be used whenever Claude is asked to research any topic, answer factual questions, provide current information, draft documents containing factual claims, give legal advice or cite legal authority, discuss current events or public figures, provide technical or scientific information, state statistics or data points, or answer ANY question where the answer could have changed over time. Also trigger when the user asks Claude to 'check', 'verify', 'confirm', 'research', 'look up', or 'find out' anything, or when the user needs information that requires freshness, precision, or source accuracy. This skill overrides any default tendency to answer from memory. If a task involves stating facts, citing sources, or providing current information — use this skill.

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。

AFA design, scope-to-fee matching, negotiation preparation, health check, and scope dispute assessment for in-house legal ops teams managing outside counsel arrangements. Design fee structures (fixed, capped, collar, blended, phased, success). Assess whether scope supports a proposed AFA. Prepare commercial positions for fee negotiations. Review existing AFAs against delivery data. Assess OOS claims and build dispute response. Trigger on: 'structure the fee', 'move off hourly', 'design an AFA', 'does scope support a fixed fee?', 'negotiate the fee', 'renegotiate the arrangement', 'is our AFA holding?', 'fee health check', 'cap is being approached', 'firm is claiming OOS', 'is this in scope?', 'is this OOS?', 'AI should reduce the cost', 'blended rate vs fixed', 'collar arrangement', 'phased fees'.

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。

After any AI-generated explanation, require the learner to identify one place it could be wrong, one thing to check, and one source to consult. Builds epistemic vigilance — treats AI output as a claim to evaluate, not truth to absorb.

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 claiming work is complete, fixed, or passing — before committing, opening a PR, or handing off. Requires running the verification command in THIS turn and reading its output before any success claim.

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 about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

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 about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always

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 this skill when making any factual claim about the codebase — existence, absence, or behavior. Converts the claim-verification rule into a systematic action protocol that prevents false assertions from grep-only 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 a review workspace has manuscript text and needs a traceable claim ledger.

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。