「choice」の検索結果

Generate scaffolds that gradually increase student choice, voice, and ownership within a learning task. Use when students depend heavily on teacher direction and need to develop autonomy.

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。

Deliberate-choice procedure for a medium-to-high-stakes engineering fork — when the first plausible solution (the instinct, the default next-token pull) would be costly to get wrong. Fires AUTONOMOUSLY: invoke proactively whenever a fork fits, never wait to be asked — mechanical triggers include a fix failing for the 2nd-3rd time, adding a dependency, schema/migration design, deleting or deprecating things others depend on, changing a public API, choosing an architecture or stack. Refuse the premature collapse: hold real options open (urge · contrarian · synthesis · out-of-box · intuitive dots · precedent · first-principles), ground each branch in at least one fact from outside the model (codebase, docs, benchmark, spike), future-model consequences (blast radius, reversibility, maintenance, pre-mortem), collapse by deliberate choice, then try to refute the winner before acting. Log the decision and rejected branches in docs/decision_logs/. Not for routine calls — a decision worth more than one forward pass.

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。

Guide a user from an unclear idea to an actionable plan through the agent harness's native ask tool and clickable choices. Use when the user wants a guided requirements interview, step-by-step questions, help deciding what to build, or a button-led path from goals to scope, solution, and technology choices. Do not turn an ordinary implementation request or a single clarification into an interview.

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。

Extracts and records architectural decisions from diffs, conversation context, and explicit choices. Supports automatic extraction from staged changes, deduplication against prior decisions, and persistent ADR-format logging with spec traceability. Use after a significant design or architecture choice, before committing a diff that embeds implicit decisions, or when the same question keeps resurfacing.

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。

Writes an architecture decision record (ADR) for a decision the team has already reached: the context, the options weighed, the choice and its consequences. Use when the user says "record this decision", "write an ADR", "we decided X, capture it", or asks to document a technical choice already made. Not for making the decision itself or for tracking the work it leads to.

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。

Generate scaffolds that gradually increase student choice, voice, and ownership within a learning task. Use when students depend heavily on teacher direction and need to develop autonomy.

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 you need to mine a conversation, session transcript, or design discussion for architectural decisions before writing ADRs. Identifies problem-solution pairs, trade-off debates, technology choices, and explicit "[ADR]" tags. Triggers on "what decisions did we make", "extract decisions from this chat", "find the choices in our discussion", or "summarize architectural decisions". Also useful after long planning sessions to capture decisions that were made implicitly. Does NOT write ADR documents — use adr-writing or write-adr for that.

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。

Systematic departures from rational choice theory and their implications for economic analysis and policy. Covers cognitive heuristics (anchoring, availability, representativeness), biases (loss aversion, status quo, overconfidence), prospect theory (reference dependence, probability weighting, diminishing sensitivity), nudge theory and choice architecture, and the integration of psychological findings into economic models. Use when analyzing decision-making under uncertainty, evaluating policy interventions that exploit behavioral patterns, or assessing where standard rational-agent models break down.

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。

Designs conjoint and factorial-vignette experiments, covering attribute architecture and randomization restrictions, effective-N power, treatment realism, the choice among AMCE, marginal-mean, and AMIE estimands, forced-choice versus rating designs, and PAP tiers. Use when the user is planning a conjoint, drafting or critiquing an attribute table, asking how many respondents or tasks are needed, whether to report AMCEs or marginal means, or how to test interactions. Reviewing an existing design goes to conjoint-diagnostics, cleaning the export to conjoint-cleaning.

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。

Designs conjoint and factorial-vignette experiments: attributes and restrictions, effective-N power, estimand choice among AMCE, marginal means, and AMIE, forced choice versus rating, and PAP tiers. Use when planning a conjoint, critiquing an attribute table, sizing respondents and tasks, or testing interactions.

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。

Turns a raw Qualtrics conjoint export into an analysis-ready long-format dataset, covering export settings, identifying the implementation, package or manual wide-to-long reshaping, choice-profile alignment, ratings, reference categories, pilot exclusion, and subgroup merges. Use when the user has a conjoint CSV to clean, reshape, or debug, cannot align choices with profiles, or asks what the data must look like before AMCE estimation. Design goes to conjoint-design, validity review to conjoint-diagnostics.

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。

Synchronize existing READMEs with local Git code changes and every language edition. This skill should be used for update readme, sync readme, 更新 README, 更新项目文档, 同步多语言 README, README を更新して, README 업데이트해 줘, обнови README, or /readme-update. Ask for an exact project version or explicit unchanged choice before editing; inspect committed, staged, unstaged and untracked changes, weave each change into its natural position (never just the beginning or end), keep the flowchart current, and keep all language editions identical apart from the language.

AI multi-path reasoning coherence using bee democracy — independent evaluation of competing approaches, waggle dance as reasoning-out-loud, quorum sensing for confidence thresholds, and deadlock resolution. Use when forage-solutions has identified multiple valid approaches and a selection must be made, when oscillating between options without committing, when justifying an architecture or tool choice with structured reasoning, or before an irreversible action where the cost of the wrong choice is high.

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。

State management and storage choice in React Native. State libs work mostly the same as web (Zustand, Jotai, Redux Toolkit, TanStack Query, Context); storage choice is RN-specific — AsyncStorage, MMKV, SecureStore, Keychain. Hydration patterns, splash screen handling, secrets discipline. Use this skill to: - Pick state management lib (matches web React intuition). - Pick storage by sensitivity (AsyncStorage / MMKV / SecureStore / Keychain). - Hydrate state on app start without UI flicker. - Persist Zustand store across app restarts. - Avoid storing secrets in plaintext storage. Do NOT use this skill for: - General project conventions (see rn-conventions). - Platform-specific code (see rn-platform-specific). - Navigation (see rn-navigation). - Testing state/storage (see rn-testing).

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 Upper Echelons Theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) to analyze how top management team characteristics — demographics, experiences, values — shape strategic choices and organizational outcomes. Use this skill when the user needs to evaluate TMT composition effects on strategy, predict strategic direction from leadership profiles, assess whether managerial discretion enables or constrains executive influence, or when they ask 'does leadership background matter for strategy', 'how does TMT composition affect decisions', or 'why did this management team make that choice'.".

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 public choice theory to analyze political decision-making as rational self-interested behavior. Use this skill when the user needs to evaluate government policy failures, rent-seeking costs, voting outcomes, or bureaucratic incentives, especially when the assumption of benevolent government is questionable.".

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 behavioral economics concepts including bounded rationality, prospect theory, mental accounting, and nudge theory to analyze decision-making biases. Use this skill when the user needs to understand why people make irrational economic decisions, design choice architectures, or apply nudges to influence behavior — even if they say 'why do customers make bad choices', 'how do we encourage people to save more', or 'design a better default option'.".

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 designing, implementing, or reviewing frontend-to-backend API integration, typed API clients, REST/tRPC/OpenAPI client choices, auth refresh, API error mapping, upload flows, SSE/WebSocket/polling choices, CORS-facing frontend behavior, or cross-boundary loading/error states. Do not use for backend-only service architecture or TanStack Query cache policy alone; Chinese triggers include API integration, front-end and back-end joint debugging, typed API client, Interface error handling, SSE, WebSocket.

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。

Configure related lists on Salesforce records — column choice on Page Layouts (max 10 fields per related list), sort field selection, the Spring '24 Enhanced Related Lists component (which adds filtering, mass actions, and 10-row inline display), the choice between Related Lists / Related Lists - Single / Related List - Quick Links in Lightning App Builder, per-record-type related-list assignments, and the View All / pagination UX. NOT for FSL WorkOrderMilestone-on-Work-Order layout (use admin/fsl-sla-configuration-requirements), NOT for the Lightning page performance Related List - Single vs Full tradeoff in isolation (use admin/lightning-page-performance-tuning), NOT for Industries Timeline-as-related-list (use admin/health-cloud-timeline), NOT for offline-priming related-list caps (use admin/fsl-mobile-app-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。

Identifies super-enhancers from H3K27ac, MED1, or BRD4 ChIP-seq using ROSE, ROSE2, LILY, HOMER -style super, and ENCODE dELS cross-referencing. Handles peak stitching parameters, ranking choices, hockey-stick inflection, marker choice (H3K27ac vs MED1/BRD4), and cross-condition comparison with spike-in normalization. Constructs core regulatory circuitry (Saint-Andre 2016) from SE-encoded TFs. Use when identifying cell-identity / cancer-associated regulatory domains, comparing super-enhancers between conditions, identifying master transcription factor networks, or predicting BET-inhibitor responsiveness.

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。

Strategy cascade based on Roger Martin and A.G. Lafley's Playing to Win framework. Five interconnected choices that define a real strategy — not a vision statement, not a list of priorities, not a strategic plan that's really just a budget with adjectives. Runs in three modes — Diagnostic for building or rebuilding the full cascade, Review for pressure-testing an existing one, and Alert Triggers for defining the tripwires that tell you the cascade is breaking. Updates company-context.md after every run. Triggers on questions about strategy, strategic choices, winning aspiration, where to play, how to win, competitive strategy, or when someone says "we need a strategy" and means it. Based on practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).

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。

MAGI System v2 — AoT 分解 + MELCHIOR/BALTHASAR/CASPAR 合議 + lam-harness:gabriel adversarial probe による 構造化意思決定フレームワーク。判断ポイント 2+ / 影響レイヤー 3+ / 選択肢 3+ で使用。 Use when facing complex decisions with multiple trade-offs or architectural choices.

MAGI System v2 — AoT 分解 + MELCHIOR/BALTHASAR/CASPAR 合議 + gabriel adversarial probe による 構造化意思決定フレームワーク。判断ポイント 2+ / 影響レイヤー 3+ / 選択肢 3+ で使用。 Use when facing complex decisions with multiple trade-offs or architectural choices.

Capture the "why" behind technical choices to prevent architectural drift. Load when the user makes a major technical decision, chooses a library/framework, defines a system boundary, or changes a core architectural pattern. Also triggers on "record a decision", "write an ADR", "why did we do this", "document this architectural choice", or "architectural decision record". Supports `SYNTHESIS=true` mode for retrospective ADR backfill from observed repo state — used by `retroactive-project-setup` and any future backfill skill. Essential for long-term project maintainability and agent alignment.

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。