「drafting」の検索結果

Use when drafting or polishing an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript so it reads clearly for a systems-science audience, follows the journal's format, and meets front-matter requirements (abstract <= 250 words, Highlights, graphical abstract). Research papers run to about 8,000 words (no hard cap). Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.

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 drafting the cover letter for an Advanced Materials submission, whose core job is to convince the editor that the work is a genuine materials advance of broad impact worthy of the journal. Argues the impact case; does not fix the science or format the manuscript.

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 drafting or revising the prose of an AEJ: Economic Policy manuscript — especially the abstract and introduction — to translate causal estimates into a clear policy takeaway without overclaiming. Shapes the policy-first narrative and house style; it does not design identification or build the welfare model.

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 drafting the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) rebuttal — turning multiple anonymous reviews into one focused, anonymous response that fixes factual errors first, adds small confirmatory cross-modal results, concedes calibratedly, and stays inside policy (anonymous, no new external links), written for the area chair who decides.

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 drafting the response to an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) R&R after the manuscript has been revised — structuring the response letter and handling reviewer/editor comments. Drafts the response; it does not perform the underlying revisions (do those first).

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 Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) revise-and-resubmit arrives — planning revisions that may include recoding field data, new experimental conditions, or deepened theorizing, and drafting the point-by-point response to an interdisciplinary reviewer panel. Drafts the response; it does not run new analysis (aos-data-analysis) or the final preflight (aos-submission).

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 responding to 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) reviewer reports / an R&R — drafting a point-by-point response letter and 修改说明 that addresses accounting-measure construction, institutional/standard accuracy, identification, and information-mechanism concerns, while keeping the revision anonymous. Use only after the manuscript itself has been revised.

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 drafting an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused replies aimed at the meta-reviewer.

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 drafting an ACL author response inside an ACL Rolling Review cycle on OpenReview, covering the response window before meta-review, reviewer discussion dynamics, score-change strategy, flagging review issues to the area chair, anonymity rules, and deciding between responding now versus revising for a later ARR cycle.

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 empirical identification strategy is the bottleneck for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — exogenous standard / regulatory changes (event study, DID), PSM, Heckman, IV — and you need to stress-test the design before drafting tables. Prefers standard/regulatory shocks as the cleanest accounting identification source.

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 judging whether a manuscript's landing point is an ACCOUNTING issue (accounting information / disclosure / audit / standards) versus a corporate-finance mechanism, before drafting for 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research). Use this to decide fit and to re-route finance-mechanism papers to a finance journal before any other acr-* 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。

Use when drafting the revision and response letter after an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the action editor and reviewers across a multi-round developmental process. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (amj-review-process).

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 drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

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 drafting an AAMAS rebuttal to preliminary OpenReview reviews, covering the double-blind constraint, the no-new-results and no-revised-paper norms, how to answer game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewers at once, and how to give the area chair a clean acceptance rationale within a short response window.

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 high-converting cold emails using structured frameworks, personalization tiers, and patterns from real campaigns. Pure reasoning skill — no scripts. Auto-loads when any task requires outreach copy.

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。

Generates draft requirements from Simulink models. Use when drafting or updating requirement artifacts from a model. Prefers Requirements Toolbox (.slreqx) when available; falls back to structured YAML.

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。

British business English writing style for professional communications — polished, understated, EN-GB spelling (colour, organise, centre). Use whenever the user is writing for a British audience: emails, chat messages, proposals, client communications, blog posts, web copy, or any business writing. Apply to drafting, editing, and tone-checking professional text.

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。

New Zealand business English writing style for professional communications — warm, inclusive, EN-NZ spelling (colour, organise, centre). Use whenever the user is writing for a New Zealand audience: emails, chat messages, proposals, client communications, blog posts, web copy, or any business writing. Apply to drafting, editing, and tone-checking professional text.

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。

American business English writing style for professional communications — direct, action-oriented, EN-US spelling (color, organize, center). Use whenever the user is writing for an American audience: emails, chat messages, proposals, client communications, blog posts, web copy, or any business writing. Apply to drafting, editing, and tone-checking professional text.

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。

Australian business English for professional writing — warm, direct, EN-AU spelling (colour, organise, centre), no filler words. Use whenever the user is writing for an Australian audience: emails, chat messages, proposals, client communications, blog posts, web copy, or any business writing. Apply to drafting, editing, and tone-checking professional text.

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 research report from the vault: scope the question against existing pages, name the gaps, and write findings with citations, disagreements and limits. Use this skill when the user asks for a research report, a deep write-up on a topic, or wants to understand a subject thoroughly using what they have collected. Do NOT use for a quick answer from the vault, for drafting an article in the user's voice, or for summarising a single source.

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 users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.

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。

Reduce defensive writing in drafts and revisions by removing unnecessary caveats, disclaimers, hedges, apology-like framing, negative self-limiting statements, and over-explanations while preserving necessary scope, accuracy, safety, legal, ethical, and methodological limits. Use when drafting or revising academic writing, papers, essays, abstracts, introductions, contribution statements, discussions, conclusions, technical explanations, grant writing, product writing, policy writing, professional reports, or any text the user wants to be clearer, stronger, more direct, more concise, more confident, less verbose, less caveated, less apologetic, or less defensive.

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。

Expert SOX IT General Controls (ITGC) advisor for finance, internal audit and IT compliance teams. Covers the four ITGC domains external auditors test for SOX 404 — access to programs and data, program changes, computer operations, and program development — plus scoping in-scope systems from the financial statements, designing risk-and-control matrices (RCMs), writing control narratives and test scripts, evaluating deficiencies (control deficiency vs significant deficiency vs material weakness under AS 2201 and Reg S-X), drafting remediation plans, SOX 404(a)/404(b) applicability and filer status, IPO readiness timelines, and COSO 2013 alignment. Use this skill whenever a user mentions SOX, ITGC, IT general controls, 404(a)/404(b), ICFR, material weakness, user access reviews, segregation of duties in IT, change management controls for financial systems, SOX testing or walkthroughs, PCAOB audits, or quarterly compliance for financial reporting 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。