“debate”的搜索结果

Decision transparency, feedback collection, and debate invitations for AID methodology. Active in ALL phases for ALL roles.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Load when orchestrating Multi-Agent Debate (MAD), adversarial code reviews, or pull-request deliberation to enforce Response Anonymization, expert persona assignment, and weighted post-hoc voting.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Expert en collaboration entre agents IA (swarm, débat, vote, délégation, consensus)

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Prepares statistical reports for clinical trials following CONSORT 2025, SPIRIT 2025, ICH E9(R1) estimands, and FDA 2023 covariate adjustment guidance. Covers Table 1 generation, analysis populations (ITT/FAS/PP/Safety), the 5 ICH E9(R1) intercurrent-event strategies, MMRM under MAR (mmrm), reference-based MI (rbmi J2R/CR/CIR), Permutt tipping-point sensitivity, and Rubin's-rules vs frequentist variance debate. Use when preparing regulatory submissions, defining estimands, or implementing missing-data sensitivity analyses.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Implements missing-data sensitivity analyses for confirmatory clinical trials including MMRM under MAR (with Kenward-Roger correction), reference-based multiple imputation (J2R, CR, CIR, LMCF per Carpenter-Roger 2013), Permutt delta-adjustment / tipping-point analysis, pattern-mixture identifying restrictions (CCMV, NCMV, ACMV), and the Cro vs Bartlett variance debate. Use when handling missing primary or secondary endpoint data in regulatory submissions following NRC 2010 and ICH E9(R1).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Convenes multiple agents to debate an important decision

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Prepares statistical reports for clinical trials following CONSORT 2025, SPIRIT 2025, ICH E9(R1) estimands, and FDA 2023 covariate adjustment guidance. Covers Table 1 generation, analysis populations (ITT/FAS/PP/Safety), the 5 ICH E9(R1) intercurrent-event strategies, MMRM under MAR (mmrm), reference-based MI (rbmi J2R/CR/CIR), Permutt tipping-point sensitivity, and Rubin's-rules vs frequentist variance debate. Use when preparing regulatory submissions, defining estimands, or implementing missing-data sensitivity analyses.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Implements missing-data sensitivity analyses for confirmatory clinical trials including MMRM under MAR (with Kenward-Roger correction), reference-based multiple imputation (J2R, CR, CIR, LMCF per Carpenter-Roger 2013), Permutt delta-adjustment / tipping-point analysis, pattern-mixture identifying restrictions (CCMV, NCMV, ACMV), and the Cro vs Bartlett variance debate. Use when handling missing primary or secondary endpoint data in regulatory submissions following NRC 2010 and ICH E9(R1).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Capture durable project memory from work, debates, debugging discoveries, learned conventions, deferred options, and session outcomes. Load when the user says remember this, save this learning, record what happened, update project memory, or preserve context for future agents.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Prepares statistical reports for clinical trials following CONSORT 2025, SPIRIT 2025, ICH E9(R1) estimands, and FDA 2023 covariate adjustment guidance. Covers Table 1 generation, analysis populations (ITT/FAS/PP/Safety), the 5 ICH E9(R1) intercurrent-event strategies, MMRM under MAR (mmrm), reference-based MI (rbmi J2R/CR/CIR), Permutt tipping-point sensitivity, and Rubin's-rules vs frequentist variance debate. Use when preparing regulatory submissions, defining estimands, or implementing missing-data sensitivity analyses.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Implements missing-data sensitivity analyses for confirmatory clinical trials including MMRM under MAR (with Kenward-Roger correction), reference-based multiple imputation (J2R, CR, CIR, LMCF per Carpenter-Roger 2013), Permutt delta-adjustment / tipping-point analysis, pattern-mixture identifying restrictions (CCMV, NCMV, ACMV), and the Cro vs Bartlett variance debate. Use when handling missing primary or secondary endpoint data in regulatory submissions following NRC 2010 and ICH E9(R1).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Naturalistic causal reasoning for failures and disputed attribution. Use when postmortems or root-cause debates need reframing. NOT for causal inference, fault trees, or fully observed failures.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Naturalistic causal reasoning for failures and disputed attribution. Use when postmortems or root-cause debates need reframing. NOT for causal inference, fault trees, or fully observed failures.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

This skill should be used when the user wants to "stress-test a design", "challenge an idea", "red team a proposal", "get critical feedback on a design", "validate a design", "adversarial architecture review", "risk assessment", "設計を検証して", "反論をもらいたい", "設計を批判的にレビュー", "デビルズアドボケート", "ストレステスト", "弱点を指摘して", "穴を見つけて", "この設計で良いか", "リスク評価", "設計のアーキテクチャレビュー", or mentions structured adversarial review of a proposal or design. NOTE: Use this for validating PROPOSALS and DESIGNS through adversarial debate, NOT for generic code review, PR review, or normal review requests (use /codex:review or /codex:adversarial-review for those). Also NOT for investigating unknown bugs (use /agent-dialectics:strong-inference for that).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。