「formal methods」の検索結果

Expert-level formal methods covering formal specification, model checking, theorem proving, type theory, program verification, and formal languages.

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。

Think and work like an expert Formal Methods Researcher. Use when a task calls for Formal Methods Researcher judgment. Reasons from operational semantics and temporal logics through SPIN/TLA+/PRISM, Coq/Lean/Isabelle, Z3/CVC5, refinement and separation logic, vacuity and false-positive diagnosis, and Dafny/F* versus property-based testing boundaries.

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。

Rapidly maps the evidence landscape around a medical topic by organizing major research streams, target populations, endpoints, methods, evidence density, and thin areas. Use this skill BEFORE medical-research-gap-finder — it provides the structured landscape that makes formal gap analysis more rigorous. Do not use for formal gap identification, study design, or protocol planning directly.

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 code correctness statically against specifications using type checking, contract verification, and formal methods. Use when: (1) Verifying type safety and null safety in Python, Java, or C/C++ code, (2) Checking design-by-contract specifications (preconditions, postconditions, invariants), (3) Validating code against formal specifications, (4) Ensuring code quality and correctness before runtime, (5) Finding potential bugs through static analysis. Supports Python (mypy, contracts), Java (javac, JML), and provides verification scripts and contract specification guidelines.

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。

Assess the scientific integrity and trustworthiness of publications before relying on their findings. Use this skill whenever evaluating a paper for a workflow, citing a study, building an analysis on published methods, or when a user asks about the reliability of a study. Checks for formal retractions, corrections, expressions of concern, and — critically — informal contradictions where subsequent studies failed to reproduce key findings. Integrates with PubMed, bioRxiv, and Consensus to provide a trust assessment. Use this skill for ANY publication evaluation, retraction checking, author reliability assessment, or when a user says "can I trust this paper", "is this study reliable", "has this been refuted", or "check this publication".

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。

Defensive counterpart to federated-harbor-redteam: closes the smells that red team opens against The Federated Harbor whitepaper. Federation-specific defenses for cross-harbor primitives — mechanization commitments, scope hedges, cross-paper dependency formalization, pre-emptive analogies (CT, Macaroons, atomic swaps), and defense-in-depth framing (refuses vs prices). Use during a versioned red-vs-white round; pairs with federated-harbor-redteam. NOT for ad-hoc code review, NOT for the Anchor or Bonded papers (use whitehat-defense).

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 a structured deep-reading Paper Card for one scientific paper, analysing methods, experiment-to-claim evidence, limitations, and research ideas. Use for 论文精读卡、方法拆解、证据链分析; not full-paper bilingual translation or formal 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。

Proves protocols and agent workflows with TLA+, P, Alloy, Z3, Dafny, or Lean. Use when proving protocols correct, writing TLA+ specs, or verifying LLM proofs.

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。

Formulate a quantum mechanics or quantum chemistry problem with proper mathematical framework including Hilbert space, operators, boundary conditions, and approximation method selection. Use when setting up a quantum mechanics problem for analytic or numerical solution, formulating a quantum chemistry calculation, translating a physical scenario into the Schrodinger or Dirac formalism, or choosing between perturbation theory, variational methods, DFT, and exact diagonalization.

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。

Foundational theory for process-oriented concurrency through synchronous message-passing, applicable to multi-agent coordination and parallel decomposition

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。

Knowledge base from the FAA Requirements Engineering Management Handbook (DOT/FAA/AR-08/32). Use for writing requirements for real-time, embedded control systems — the avionics/medical slant — via the Handbook's eleven recommended practices: system overview and boundary (monitored/controlled variables), operational concepts (use cases), environmental assumptions, change-tolerant functional architecture (dependency diagrams), safety-driven architecture revision (FHA/PSSA/fault tree), system modes, detailed behavior and performance requirements (ideal value + tolerance + latency), the four-variable model bridge to software requirements (MON/CON/NAT/REQ, IN'/REQ'/OUT', DO-178B mapping), subsystem allocation, and rationale. Carries the Isolette Thermostat and Flight Control System worked examples. Slanted toward control systems with sensors and actuators; thin on information-system / enterprise / agile requirements, on requirements-management tooling, and on the formal-methods internals of SCR/RSML/SpecTRM (it names them, does not re-teach them). Does not reproduce the IEEE/DO-178B/ARP standards it cites.

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。

Knowledge base from the NASA Cost Estimating Handbook (CEH) v4.0. Use for NASA's 12-step, three-part cost estimating process (Project Definition, Cost Methodology, Cost Estimate); the WBS, CADRe, and ONCE data backbone; estimating methodologies (analogy, parametric/CER, engineering build-up, EVM, Delphi); ground rules and assumptions, data normalization and inflation (BY/CY/RY); the point-estimate-to-S-curve cost-risk chain and Unallocated Future Expense (UFE) reserves; Joint Cost and Schedule Confidence Level (JCL) analysis via probabilistic cost-loaded schedules; decision-support analyses (sensitivity, trade studies, make/lease-vs-buy, affordability, CAIV); and economic analysis (discounting, NPV, OMB Circular A-94). The cost-estimating complement to NASA's SE and risk packs. Does NOT reproduce the handbook's tool-specific procedures, worked examples, or appendix-depth methods (it names the appendices), nor cover full DoD/GAO cost guides, schedule construction, or formal risk management beyond the cost interface.

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 reviewer for The Federated Harbor whitepaper — the third paper in the Curiositech sequence after Anchor and Bonded Commons. Probes federation-specific threats: trust transitivity, cross-harbor token forgery, federated revocation under partition, cross-harbor Sybil, cross-domain settlement, equivocation, bond-pool draining, cold-start joining, federation-operator Sybil. Use during a versioned red-vs-white round; pairs with federated-harbor-whitehat. NOT for incident response, NOT for the Anchor or Bonded papers (use redteam-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。

Drafting and iterating sections of The Federated Harbor whitepaper — the third paper in the Curiositech sequence after Anchor (local identity) and Bonded Commons (local coordination), extending coordination across machines and administrative domains. Use when authoring a section, rewriting a section after a redteam/whitehat round, or composing a new chapter. NOT for marketing copy, NOT for the other two papers, NOT for production threat response.

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。