「quality assessment」の検索結果

Evaluate ENCODE experiment quality using standard metrics and audit flags. Use when the user asks about data quality, wants to filter for high-quality experiments, needs to interpret quality metrics (FRiP, NSC, RSC, NRF, IDR, TSS enrichment, fragment size), wants to understand ENCODE audit warnings, needs to compare quality across experiments, or is deciding whether data is usable for their analysis. Also use when the user mentions QC, quality control, or data filtering.

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。

VS-Enhanced Evidence Quality Appraiser - Prevents Mode Collapse with context-adaptive quality assessment Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Avoids automatic tool application, delivers research-specific evaluation strategies Use when: appraising study quality, assessing risk of bias, grading evidence Triggers: quality appraisal, RoB, GRADE, Newcastle-Ottawa, risk of bias, methodological quality

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。

Combined codebase health dashboard that scores a project across all four quality dimensions — PR quality, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — in a single pass, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user wants an overall quality assessment, asks "how healthy is this codebase?", "run all the checks", "I need a health score before the release", or wants to onboard a new team with a quality overview. Do NOT trigger for: server health checks, HTTP health endpoints, Kubernetes liveness/readiness probes, database health, or application uptime. Also do not trigger when the user specifically requests only one dimension — use the corresponding focused skill instead (brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test).

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 proposed assessment for construct validity, reliability, and alignment to learning objectives. Use when reviewing or quality-assuring assessments before deployment.

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 proposed assessment for construct validity, reliability, and alignment to learning objectives. Use when reviewing or quality-assuring assessments before deployment.

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。

4人の異なる専門家ペルソナ（20年ベテランエンジニア、TDDエキスパート、Clean Codeエキスパート、バグハンター）で ソースコードを批判的にレビューするスキル。設計判断、テスト容易性、可読性、バグ検出の観点から コードの問題を検出し、改善提案を行う。Python/JavaScriptに対しては追加のチェックポイントを適用。 バグハンターは状態遷移、例外パス、依存関係、非同期競合に特化し、本番環境での問題を事前に検出する。 Use when reviewing source code from multiple expert perspectives to find design flaws, testability issues, code quality problems, and runtime bugs. Triggers: "critical code review", "multi-persona code review", "expert code review", "code quality assessment", "find bugs".

Evaluates the quality of cohort studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Use when the user provides a cohort study article or text and needs a quality assessment report.

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。

This skill should be used when comparing two videos to analyze compression results or quality differences. Generates interactive HTML reports with quality metrics (PSNR, SSIM) and frame-by-frame visual comparisons. Triggers when users mention "compare videos", "video quality", "compression analysis", "before/after compression", or request quality assessment of compressed videos.

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。

Code and product quality gates for shipping with confidence. Runs code review, QA testing, performance checks, and security audits. Use when the user says 'review my code', 'is this ready to ship', 'check quality', 'run QA', 'test this', 'security check', 'pre-launch review', or wants a quality assessment before deploying.

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。

Provides comprehensive memory file management capabilities including auditing, quality assessment, and targeted improvements for files such as CLAUDE.md. Use when user asks to check, audit, update, improve, fix, maintain, or validate project memory files. Also triggers for "project memory optimization", "CLAUDE.md quality check", "documentation review", or when a project memory file needs to be created from scratch. This skill scans memory files, evaluates quality against standardized criteria, outputs detailed quality reports with scores and recommendations, then makes targeted updates with user approval.

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。

This skill should be used when comparing two videos to analyze compression results or quality differences. Generates interactive HTML reports with quality metrics (PSNR, SSIM) and frame-by-frame visual comparisons. Triggers when users mention "compare videos", "video quality", "compression analysis", "before/after compression", or request quality assessment of compressed videos.

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。

Move quality earlier in the development lifecycle. Covers dev/QA pairing patterns, Three Amigos sessions, TDD facilitation (Red-Green-Refactor), PR review checklists for testability, and Definition of Done with quality gates. Includes shift-left maturity model for team assessment. Use when: "shift left," "TDD," "dev-QA pairing," "definition of done," "testability," "quality culture," "QA in sprint planning." Not for: writing the unit tests themselves — use unit-testing; automated PR test-quality review at scale — use ai-qa-review; multi-quarter QA direction or roadmap — use test-strategy. Related: unit-testing, ai-qa-review, test-strategy.

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 implementation plan quality across 8 dimensions (requirement-coverage, task-completeness, dependency-validity, scope-sanity, artifact-wiring, risk-assessment, testability, estimation-quality) and returns pass/fail with per-dimension scores.

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 evidence needs grading before anyone reasons from it — the user asks "how reliable is this?", "grade this source", "check this report", "can I trust this article?", "is this corroborated?", or hands over a URL, a pasted report or a Liberty91 event ahead of an ACH or assessment. The Quality of Information Check from the CIA Tradecraft Primer, adapted for vendor and press CTI reporting. Resolves each document to its originating source, splits it into claims, and grades every claim on two written elements, access level (how the source knows) and claim support (what backs the statement), with a stated rationale, using a fixed rubric with hard caps. The grade is not an Admiralty rating. Five outlets citing one vendor report count as one source; anything that cannot be traced to a primary is capped, not guessed. Returns a graded claim table, gaps, a deception screen and JSON. /ach, /threat-assessment and /writing-assessments run it first by default.

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。

Aesthetic assessment and design scoring across 6 dimensions. Use for UI critique, design review, visual quality assessment, remix suggestions. Activate on "design critique", "aesthetic review", "UI assessment", "visual quality", "design score", "remix this design". NOT for implementation (use frontend-developer), accessibility-only audits (use color-contrast-auditor), or brand identity creation.

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。

Validates agent outputs against schemas and quality criteria, scores confidence, detects hallucinations, monitors convergence, decides when to iterate, and synthesizes actionable feedback. Use when checking if a node's output is acceptable, scoring confidence, detecting fabricated content, deciding whether to re-execute, or generating improvement feedback. Activate on "validate output", "check quality", "confidence score", "hallucination check", "should we iterate", "improvement feedback". NOT for executing DAGs (use dag-runtime), planning DAGs (use dag-planner), or matching skills (use dag-skills-matcher).

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。

Aesthetic assessment and design scoring across 6 dimensions. Use for UI critique, design review, visual quality assessment, remix suggestions. Activate on "design critique", "aesthetic review", "UI assessment", "visual quality", "design score", "remix this design". NOT for implementation (use frontend-developer), accessibility-only audits (use color-contrast-auditor), or brand identity creation.

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。

Clinical Research Bias Assessment - Case-Control Study (NOS) v2.3.0. Use when you need to assess the bias of a case-control study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criteria, or when evaluating the quality of a medical paper.

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。

Analyse existing written feedback for quality, specificity, actionability, and impact on student learning. Use when reviewing teacher or peer feedback to improve feedback practices.

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。

Data quality assessment is an integral part of preparatory data analysis to ensure sound biological information retrieval. We present here the MatrixQCvis package, which provides shiny-based interactive visualization of data quality metrics at the per-sample and per-feature level. It is broadly applicable to quantitative omics data types that come in matrix-like format (features x samples). It enables the detection of low-quality samples, drifts, outliers and batch effects in data sets. Visualiz

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。

Type-specific validation checklists, six quality characteristics, and quality gate thresholds for documentation 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。

Comprehensive data quality assessment against business rules, schema constraints, and freshness expectations. Activate when validating data pipeline outputs before production use, auditing a dataset against defined business rules, or producing a quality scorecard for a data asset.

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。

Analyse existing written feedback for quality, specificity, actionability, and impact on student learning. Use when reviewing teacher or peer feedback to improve feedback practices.

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。