362 个 · 按相关度排序
Uses multiple agents with different critical roles to challenge assumptions, complexity, risks, and alternatives. Findings that withstand review go to a dedicated planner, who turns them into sequenced tasks with explicit success criteria.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Solve competition mathematics problems and examine proofs through independent agents that actively look for gaps, counterexamples, and misused theorems. Produces a checked argument or clearly states what remains unresolved, with optional PDF output.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Design tests that assess an AI agent's capabilities and reliability. Covers repeated runs to measure variation, checks for required behavior, and adversarial testing to expose failures that ordinary successful examples may miss.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Prepare for board meetings, investor updates, and fundraising presentations by reviewing key numbers, rehearsing difficult questions, and shaping an honest business narrative. Includes preparation for individual directors and follow-up actions after the meeting.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Reviews code changes through documented engineering and product principles associated with named practitioners. Combines two engineering perspectives and one product perspective to produce findings with severity, attribution confidence, and technical reasoning for architecture, performance, or user experience issues.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Stress-test ideas, strategies, and plans by breaking them into individual claims for parallel expert agents to challenge. Receive the strongest supporting case, surviving counterarguments, and findings ranked by severity with suggested ways to address weaknesses.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Stress-test a paper with a focused rejection argument, then have a separate reviewer assess each objection against the current text. The report identifies unresolved weaknesses, their severity, and priority fixes for submission or rebuttal preparation.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Review completed code through three roles: a critical reviewer, a verifier, and an adjudicator. Check evidence, look for bugs introduced by fixes, and produce an actionable repair list with regression tests and traceable review reports.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
[omh] Hostile scenario testing: adversarial QA and fix loops. Use when the user says: ultraqa, adversarial qa, hostile scenarios, e2e qa, real-world qa, qa scenario, release qa, 敵対的QA.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Adversarial dual-model code review that runs two AI models in parallel, cross-references findings, and produces a consensus severity table with fix confidence ratings. Use when asked for a thorough code review, adversarial review, dual-model review, confidence-rated review, or 'Hanselman review'.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Für Adversarial Test AGB: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Für Abtretung: ordnet Norm, Beweislast und Gegenargument; Ergebnis: Prüfprodukt mit Risiko und nächstem Schritt. Fachgebiet: AGB-Recht-Prüfer. Route: abtretung-adversarial-test.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Three modes for CS-conference papers (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV vision, ACL/EMNLP/NAACL NLP, ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/AAAI ML). DIRECT-EDIT mode (common): the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the manuscript (LaTeX or Markdown) is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit with author sign-off (use for 改这段 / 把中文想法写成 latex / polish / de-AI / translate / compress a passage). REVIEW mode (occasional, pre-submission): harden the paper through an adversarial courtroom review engine (N holistic domain reviewers / contestability routing / two-sided trial / three-way verdict / clerk-converged multi-round loop) with consensus-gated, author-signed revisions (use for review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review). AUTO mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal): run the review-revise loop toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing risky ones. Resolves all inputs at runtime, no hardcoded paths. Not a from-scratch drafter (use ml-paper-writing) and not an official-venue rebuttal.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Adversarial "perfection" review — hold a change to an *ideal* bar, not just a correct one, assuming eternal time, unlimited energy, and no ship pressure. Use when the user asks to review "for perfection", to make a defect "impossible to express", or to hunt where a defect "relocates" across review rounds. Grounds every claim in the diff, fans out adversarial verifiers via Workflow, and reports residual surfaces with a structural fix for each. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly asks for a perfection / ideal-bar review.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Act as experienced opposing counsel to attack, undermine, and expose weaknesses in a legal argument, submission, witness statement, or structured reasoning. Produces a six-part adversarial analysis: 1. A core theory of attack identifying the single most effective way to defeat the argument; 2. A reconstructed version of the opposing argument stripped of rhetoric to expose its fragility; 3. Primary lines of attack grouped by category (legal misstatement, evidential gaps, causation failures, internal inconsistency, over-reliance on assertion, procedural weakness); 4. An "if I were the judge" section showing how a sceptical tribunal would dismantle the argument; 5. Surgical strikes - 3 to 5 high-impact points ready for oral submissions; and 6. An analysis of what the argument is trying to hide. Written in formal, adversarial British English for a legally trained audience.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Adversarial premortem for England & Wales civil litigation - builds the strongest version of a case, then attacks it from four angles to find where it loses before opposing counsel does. Runs an adversarial premortem on a UK litigation matter. Builds the strongest version of the case, then attacks it from four angles — procedural, substantive, evidentiary, strategic — to find where it actually loses. Returns a ranked stress-test brief: failure scenarios, evidence inconsistencies, blind spots, mitigations, and one brutal one-sentence verdict. Use before issue, before settlement negotiations, before a litigation-funder pitch, or before deciding whether to take a case.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Prepare a lawyer for an adversarial proceeding the way Neal Katyal's "Harvey" prepared him for the SCOTUS tariffs argument: profile the tribunal from their prior opinions and questions, predict the specific questions you will face, map narrow "escape routes" each judge can walk through without abandoning prior commitments, and spar adversarially until only the strongest answers survive. The model is the sparring partner. The human still wins the case. Use when: preparing for oral argument, appellate argument, motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, deposition (taking or defending), arbitration, mediation, or any proceeding where a known decision-maker will fire questions at you in real time. Also useful for stress-testing a brief before filing. Proactively suggest when: the user mentions an upcoming hearing/argument with named judges or arbitrators, drafts a brief and wants it pressure-tested, asks "what will Justice X / Judge Y ask me," or talks about preparing for a specific bench.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified", "is this actually done", "maker checker", "second pair of eyes on this change". Not for prose, docs or typo edits.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Adversarially review something just built — presume it is broken and find where. Use after implementing a feature, finishing a build, or before shipping, or whenever ATLAS or Boss wants a hostile second opinion on a diff, a running app, or a whole codebase. Spawns clean-context reviewers with opposing lenses (correctness, security, empty-world) and reproduces every finding by running the target before believing it. Distinct from /code-review, which statically reads a diff and never runs the app.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
OI-3 spike harness — ADVERSARIAL inline guidance variant. Worst-case anchor: ends with a final-sounding completion statement and gives NO instruction to return to the caller. Use only when a spike consumer skill invokes it.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
OI-3 spike harness — heavy consumer, ADVERSARIAL arm. Worst-case early-exit test: the mid-workflow Skill call has no continuation guardrail and the guidance skill ends with a final-sounding anchor. Use only when explicitly invoked by the spike harness with a TRIAL_ID and data path.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Generate randomized and edge-case inputs to detect unexpected failures, bugs, and security vulnerabilities through fuzz testing. Use when creating test cases for robustness testing, generating adversarial inputs, testing error handling, finding edge cases, or security testing. Produces Python test code with fuzzing inputs for strings, numbers, and structured data focusing on edge cases, invalid inputs, and random valid inputs. Triggers when users ask to generate fuzz tests, create randomized test inputs, test edge cases, find bugs through fuzzing, or generate adversarial test cases.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Cross-context adversarial review for deliverables before shipping. Use when producing blog posts, technical recommendations, analysis briefs, code, or any artifact where accuracy matters more than speed. Triggers on "challenge this", "review before shipping", "adversarial pass", "stress test this".
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。