「research rigor」の検索結果

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 8 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, three-way literature scan, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, WHY HOW WHAT papers, 3W literature scan, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 三段式文獻掃描, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題, 심층 연구, 문헌 조사, 체계적 문헌고찰, 메타분석, 사실 확인, 연구 방향을 잡아줘, 연구 주제 정하는 것을 도와줘, revisión de literatura, metaanálisis

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。

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題.

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。

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題.

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。

Performs ARA Seal Level 2 semantic epistemic review on Agent-Native Research Artifacts, scoring six dimensions (evidence relevance, falsifiability, scope calibration, argument coherence, exploration integrity, methodological rigor) and producing a constructive, severity-ranked report with a Strong Accept-to-Reject recommendation. Use after Level 1 structural validation passes, when an ARA needs an objective epistemic critique before publication or release.

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。

Conduct rigorous, citation-backed desk market research: quick go/no-go market scans, market sizing (TAM/SAM/SOM), competitor analysis, customer demand signals, and trend/macro (PESTEL) analysis. Use this skill whenever the user wants to research, size, validate, or enter a market — "is there a market for…", "how big is the market for…", "who are the competitors of…", "should I build/launch/sell…", "validate this business idea", "market research for…", "market entry" — in any language and for any country's market (e.g. "nghiên cứu thị trường", "étude de marché", "市場調査", "análisis de mercado"), even when the user never says the words "market research". Also use it when another skill or workflow (strategy-board, design-thinking, a product brief) needs external market facts delivered into its fact base or research folder.

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。

Transparent, rigorous research with full methodology — not a black-box API wrapper. Conducts exhaustive investigation through mandated 2-cycle research per theme, APA 7th citations, evidence hierarchy, and 3 user checkpoints. Self-contained using native OpenClaw tools (web_search, web_fetch, sessions_spawn). Use for literature reviews, competitive intelligence, or any research requiring academic rigor and reproducibility.

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。

Transparent, rigorous research with full methodology — not a black-box API wrapper. Conducts exhaustive investigation through mandated 2-cycle research per theme, APA 7th citations, evidence hierarchy, and 3 user checkpoints. Self-contained using native OpenClaw tools (web_search, web_fetch, sessions_spawn). Use for literature reviews, competitive intelligence, or any research requiring academic rigor and reproducibility.

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。

Think and work like an expert Computer Architecture Researcher. Use when a task calls for Computer Architecture Researcher judgment. Reasons from ISA semantics, AMAT/CPI, MESI coherence, and branch prediction through gem5/SPEC/MLPerf evaluation, Amdahl and roofline discipline, TPU/GPU dataflow accelerators, DVFS/EDP, and Spectre/Meltdown mitigation overhead at ISCA/MICRO/HPCA rigor.

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 and revise rigorous research narratives, literature reviews, manuscript sections, citations, and figure discussions. Use for technical introductions, methods, results, discussions, review articles, abstracts, or related-work sections.

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 academic research documents following academic guidelines with peer-reviewed sources from Google Scholar and other academic databases. Always verify source credibility and generate IEEE standard references. Use for research papers, literature reviews, technical reports, theses, dissertations, conference papers, and academic proposals requiring proper citations and scholarly rigor.

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。

An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.

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。

Rigorous mathematical proof verification and fixing workflow. Reads a LaTeX proof, identifies gaps via fresh-agent Codex GPT-6-Astra ultra review, fixes each gap with full derivations, re-reviews, and generates an audit report. Base review is same-family provisional. Use when user says "检查证明", "verify proof", "proof check", "审证明", "check this proof", or wants rigorous mathematical verification of a theory 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。

Rigorous mathematical proof verification and fixing workflow. Reads a LaTeX proof, identifies gaps via cross-model review (external reviewer backend, ultra reasoning), fixes each gap with full derivations, re-reviews, and generates an audit report. Use when user says "检查证明", "verify proof", "proof check", "审证明", "check this proof", or wants rigorous mathematical verification of a theory 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。

Codex-only writing and layout overlay for AI Berkshire investment research reports. Use whenever Codex creates, rewrites, revises, or critiques company/industry/fund research reports, especially long-form Markdown reports that need financial rigor, readable business mechanics, contrarian analysis, valuation-to-action guidance, investor-specific recommendations, restrained typography, and clear buy/hold/sell signals. Do not use this to modify Claude Code slash-command sources.

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 the user asks to "analyze experimental results", "run strict statistical analysis", "compare model performance", "generate scientific figures", "check significance", "do ablation analysis", or mentions interpreting experiment data with rigorous statistics and visualization. It focuses on strict analysis bundles, not Results-section 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。

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。

Apply the ScholarEval framework to systematically evaluate scholarly work across quality dimensions (novelty, rigor, significance, and clarity). Use to critique academic papers, research proposals, literature reviews, or grant applications and produce a structured, criterion-based 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。

Detects methodological gaps across study design, analysis, validation, bias control, reproducibility, and implementation readiness within a biomedical research area. Use this skill when a user wants to identify what current studies are still methodologically missing, which weaknesses are most consequential, and what upgrade path would produce a stronger next-step study. Always separate design gaps, analysis gaps, validation gaps, and reproducibility gaps. Never treat technical complexity as methodological rigor.

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 an intensive, cited analytical report: executive summary, multi-angle findings, contrarian views, open questions, and full sources. Use only when the user needs rigorous synthesis of a complex topic (scientific, technical, policy, or market-analytical) that cannot be answered with a short search, and wants a formal written report, not a recommendation list. Do not use for product picks, top-N lists, quick lookups, or routine "find out about X" tasks. If the request does not clearly need this kind of report, do not use this skill. Do not use for a literature review over published papers. This skill collects evidence from the open web. A request for the literature on a biomedical, clinical, life-science, or other scientific topic — papers, studies, trials, preprints — belongs to firecrawl-research-papers, which queries Firecrawl's paper index (PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv) instead of searching websites.

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 an intensive, cited analytical report: executive summary, multi-angle findings, contrarian views, open questions, and full sources. Use only when the user needs rigorous synthesis of a complex topic (scientific, technical, policy, or market-analytical) that cannot be answered with a short search, and wants a formal written report, not a recommendation list. Do not use for product picks, top-N lists, quick lookups, or routine "find out about X" tasks. If the request does not clearly need this kind of report, do not use this skill. Do not use for a literature review over published papers. This skill collects evidence from the open web. A request for the literature on a biomedical, clinical, life-science, or other scientific topic — papers, studies, trials, preprints — belongs to firecrawl-research-papers, which queries Firecrawl's paper index (PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, arXiv) instead of searching websites.

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。

Coach the user through a rigorous, repository-grounded interview to create or improve program.md. Use when a target repository lacks program.md, its goals, metrics, data, or guardrails are unclear, or the user asks to be grilled about an autoresearch setup.

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。

An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.

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 guidance for reviewing academic manuscripts submitted to journals, particularly in political science, economics, and quantitative social sciences. Use when asked to review, critique, or provide feedback on academic papers, research designs, or empirical strategies. Emphasizes methodological rigor, causal identification strategies, and constructive feedback on research design.

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。