「claims」の検索結果

Show the user real screenshots of the work as it progresses, without being asked. Capture the start, the key moment and the result of every visual change, send them as files with captions as soon as each is ready, and look at every image before sending it. Use on any task with a visible result (UI, pages, games, 3D, charts, motion), when the user says "show me", "screenshots", "keep giving me screenshots" or "where are the screenshots?", and before any report that claims a visual change works.

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 or digital experience against its supplied source references for originality and plagiarism risk. Use when Codex must compare current or historical site output with reference pages, capture packs, screenshots, copy, brands, numbers, images, assets, videos, layouts, motion, or code; raise evidence-backed red flags; distinguish common visual grammar from distinctive copying; and propose concrete fixes without making unsupported legal 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。

Audit work, verify claims with concrete evidence, and explain the result in simple grade-5 language. Use when the user asks to review, audit, check, verify, explain a change, explain a fix, summarize test results, validate whether something works, or translate technical findings into plain language for non-technical readers.

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。

Turn a completed daily UI inspiration capture into exactly five original landing-page builds, one per separate Codex task, using Sites. Use when the user asks to turn the daily inspiration references, a five-item UI prompt pack, or a dated `*-ui-inspiration-capture` article into distinct HTML landing pages while changing the source brands, names, copy, people, numbers, pricing, claims, and imagery.

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 Apache Pinot performance when hot paths change or a PR makes benchmark or efficiency 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。

Draft, restructure, or plan Nature-style manuscript sections from author-provided claims, results, figures, notes, or Chinese drafts. Use when the user wants to write or rebuild an abstract, introduction, results narrative, discussion, conclusion, title, or full manuscript argument rather than only polish finished prose.

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 and validate claims using counter-hypothesis testing. Use when verifying technical content, checking references, validating API endpoints, or performing quality assurance on deliverables.

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 factual claims in AI-generated text and teach a lightweight verification habit. Use when a learner wants to fact-check an AI answer, identify uncertainty, choose appropriate independent sources, or practise critical AI literacy.

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, verify, and synthesize scientific literature — from "what's the seminal paper for X" through full multi-source reviews. Covers grounding claims in real retrieved sources, avoiding fabricated citations, handling retractions, and calibrating confidence to evidence strength.

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 an implementation plan as one interactive HTML page - a tree of claims (why › what › how › where), each proved by one exhibit (UI mockup, state machine, call stack, schema or code), with the decisions the user has to make placed on the claim they change. Use when the user types /html-plan, or asks for a plan, RFC or design before building something that touches more than a couple of files.

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 research code for reproducibility and quality, extract the paper's main empirical claims, compare paper to code, and write a constructive markdown report. Designed for social science / economics projects with LaTeX papers and Stata, R, or Python code.

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 that every quantitative claim in the paper is traceable to an analysis output file, and that no important output was omitted. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants to check that the paper and analysis are consistent before submission. Triggers include: "run the quality gate", "check the paper matches the analysis", "verify consistency", "does the paper match my results", "check my numbers", "are my tables right", "quality check before submission", "verify my claims", "make sure everything is consistent", "double-check the paper against my output files", or any pre-submission integrity check between paper text and computed 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。

Causal inference framework for answering "does X cause Y?" beyond correlation. DoWhy (Microsoft Research) provides the identify-estimate-refute loop: define a causal graph (DAG), identify the causal effect using backdoor/frontdoor/instrumental variable criteria, estimate treatment effects with multiple estimators, and validate results with automated refutation tests. Use when: distinguishing causation from correlation, estimating treatment effects (ATE, ATT, CATE), designing and analyzing A/B tests with confounders, using instrumental variables, performing counterfactual reasoning ("what would have happened if..."), validating causal claims with sensitivity analysis, working with observational data where randomization is impossible, or any analysis where the question is "what is the CAUSAL effect of X on Y" rather than just "how do X and Y relate?"

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。

Thoroughly verify all code, tables, figures, modeling decisions, and quantitative claims in an academic paper against its source R scripts and output files. Use this skill whenever you need to audit, replicate, or verify an academic research paper - including cross-checking LaTeX tables against R output, validating econometric modeling choices, ensuring sample sizes are consistent, building a verification manifest, and running automated replication tests. Trigger this skill for any mention of: paper verification, replication check, table audit, code-paper consistency, reproducing results, verifying estimates, checking coefficients, or any variant of "does the paper match the code."

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 research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific 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。

中英双语学术降 AIGC / bilingual academic de-AIGC skill. Removes AI-generated writing signatures from empirical papers in economics, management, and the social sciences — in both English and Chinese. Covers Turnitin AI, GPTZero, Originality.ai on the English side and 知网 AMLC, 万方, 维普 on the Chinese side. Uses a six-step loop (intake → audit → claim-evidence check → differentiated rewrite → five-dimension self-score → cold-reader recheck) with two pattern libraries (22 English + 17 Chinese patterns), section-by-section strategies for empirical papers, and hard protections that keep every number, coefficient, and citation intact. Since 2026-08 it also carries a provenance layer (去水印): deterministic, CJK-safe cleaning of invisible-character carriers and file metadata (docx / png / jpg / svg / pdf, incl. C2PA), an honest account of Claude's statistical text watermark, and an author "ownership pass" — it never claims a text is watermark-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。

Reviews whether a design is SOUND — solving the right problem, derived from its stated goals and constraints — and emits ranked, evidence-backed findings, not edits. Read when asked to 'review this design', 'is this design sound', 'pressure-test this proposal', 'do a design review', 'does this solve the right problem', 'poke holes in this spec', 'should we build this', or to critique a proposal / spec / ADR / architecture or product decision. Do NOT read when the user wants to AUTHOR one of these — routing a new proposal is frame-a-proposal, a spec is write-a-spec, a decision record is record-a-decision, a postmortem is write-a-postmortem. Do NOT read for code review of a diff, or to fact-check individual claims (that is a correctness pass, a different job).

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。

Track how AI assistants describe your brand over time and catch wrong, outdated, or damaging claims. Claude builds your monitoring prompt set, compares runs week over week, and drafts the correction plan when answers drift. Platform: AI visibility.

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 to run a holistic regrounding pass on the entire microsoft/apm documentation corpus against current source code, page-by-page, and emit surgical fixes for stale claims. Activate when the maintainer wants a WHOLE-CORPUS audit (not per-PR review) -- typical triggers include "audit the docs", "reground the corpus", "check every page against code", "pre-release docs sweep", "the docs have drifted everywhere", or "we just reshaped the TOC, find dead links". Wave-batched and S7-verified; scales to the full ~112-page corpus in ~10 minutes wall-time. This is a SIBLING to docs-sync, not a replacement: docs-sync is per-PR (triggered by a diff); this skill is per-corpus (triggered by a maintainer ask). They share agent personas, schemas, and the docs index, but their triggers MUST NOT collide. Does NOT auto-merge, does NOT push without maintainer review, and does NOT replace per-PR drift 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。

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use 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。

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。

Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.

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。

Investigate GitHub security incidents using tamper-proof GitHub Archive data via BigQuery. Use when verifying repository activity claims, recovering deleted PRs/branches/tags/repos, attributing actions to actors, or reconstructing attack timelines. Provides immutable forensic evidence of all public GitHub events since 2011.

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 completion and success claims with fresh evidence. Use before claiming a task is complete, a fix works, tests pass, or a feature is ready for GO.

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。