「question」の検索結果

Turns a legal question, a set of draft questions, or source material such as a statute, jury instruction, rubric, contract checklist, or coding manual into a battery of narrow questions that TypeSafe's Jev, a fast classifier that returns probabilities rather than prose, can answer reliably across many documents. The skill breaks conclusions such as negligence, felony murder, or standing into element-level questions, writes the governing rule into each question, and delivers the questions alone, in Jev's request format or in plain English. Built for legal work that asks the same questions of many texts: coding statutes across jurisdictions, coding opinions or case files for empirical research, checking contracts against a review checklist, screening intake narratives, and grading student work against a rubric. Use when asked to write Jev questions, build a classifier for legal documents, or turn a legal test into yes-or-no questions. Running the questions requires Jev access; writing them does not.

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。

Self-tuning question sensitivity + developer psychographic for gstack (v1: observational). Review which AskUserQuestion prompts fire across gstack skills, set per-question preferences (never-ask / always-ask / ask-only-for-one-way), inspect the dual-track profile (what you declared vs what your behavior suggests), and enable/disable question tuning. Conversational interface — no CLI syntax required. Use when asked to "tune questions", "stop asking me that", "too many questions", "show my profile", "what questions have I been asked", "show my vibe", "developer profile", or "turn off question tuning". (gstack) Proactively suggest when the user says the same gstack question has come up before, or when they explicitly override a recommendation for the Nth time.

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。

Systemic questioning techniques: Circular questions, scaling questions, miracle question, and exception questions for reflection and perspective expansion.

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。

Systemic and solution-focused methods: miracle question, scaling, exception exploration, circular questions, hypothetical questions, worsening questions, coping questions. Merged from solution-focused-therapy and systemic-questioning.

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。

自分だけでは判断できない課題を、詳しい相手に渡す質問票へまとめます。相手の役割と知りたい事実を確認し、回答欄付きのMarkdown文書を作るスキル。

• 判断に必要な情報を集めたいとき
• 専門家への質問を準備したいとき
• 会議前に文書で回答をもらいたいとき

Deeply analyze any empirical economics PDF using the five-question framework (五问框架): research question, identification strategy, core estimand, robustness logic, and scholarly contribution. Converts the PDF to Markdown, dispatches 5 parallel sub-agents (one per question), then compiles a 2000–3000 Chinese-character report with a transferable methodology checklist. Optimized for empirical economics papers in top journals (AER, QJE, JPE, RFS, RoF, JFE, etc.). Use this skill whenever the user wants to: - systematically analyze an empirical economics paper - apply the 五问框架 (five-question framework) to a paper - extract transferable research design elements from a top-journal paper - understand a paper's identification strategy, estimand, or robustness logic - run /five-questions, /five-q, or /paper-five-q-analysis - "帮我做五问分析", "用五问框架分析这篇论文", "analyze this paper with the five-question framework"

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。

Track Claude's best and worst questions in DuckDB. Use when Claude asks a notably good or bad question, or to review question quality. Triggers: leaderboard, bad question, good question, question 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。

Pre-fills a customer's or prospect's security or third-party risk questionnaire from the organisation's own answer sources (prior questionnaires, answer library, policies), returning one row per question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted, Missing or Routed, its source, date, scope match and owner, plus the Missing list by owner. Never invents an answer, certification or control and never submits. Use when the user asks to "pre-fill this security questionnaire", "take a first pass at the customer's due diligence form", "answer this vendor assessment from our previous responses", "populate the third-party risk questionnaire" or "which questions can we reuse answers for". Do not use for screening a vendor's own answers, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for RFP or tender answers use rfp-response-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Clarifies a vague clinical or biomedical research idea into a structured, bounded, searchable, researchable, and testable question. Always use this skill whenever a user has an early-stage clinical or research thought, an over-broad topic, an ill-defined evidence question, or an unclear problem statement that must be translated into a question framing suitable for literature retrieval, evidence synthesis, gap analysis, study design, or downstream protocol planning. Never jump straight to answering the substantive medical question unless the user explicitly asks for that. Focus first on question framing, boundary setting, and downstream-ready formulation.

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。

Answer Viking AI Search product questions, CLI usage questions, API/auth questions, configuration questions, and troubleshooting questions by grounding every claim in either the installed `vs` CLI's own output or official Volcengine documentation. Never fabricate.

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。

Prepares a DRAFT vendor risk screening brief from the material the user provides on one vendor (questionnaire answers, certificates, assurance reports, policies, contract extracts): per screening topic, what a document evidences with reference, date and scope, what is only asserted, what is missing or contradicted, certificate and report details as stated, and ready-to-send questions for the vendor and the internal owners. No web research, no risk rating, tier, score or recommendation. Use when the user asks to "screen this vendor", "review the vendor's questionnaire answers", "check what the vendor's certificate covers", "what is missing from this due diligence pack" or "draft the follow-up questions for the vendor". Do not use for answering a customer's questionnaire about your own organisation, use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Create, write, or manage Meta ads and assets: ad copy, campaigns, spend, reports, audiences, catalogs, product feeds, feed refresh schedules, experiments, and policy. Always load for any request to create or write an ad, or to advertise a product or service, even when no platform is named; this includes sensitive or restricted categories. Always load for any question asking what a Meta, Facebook, or Instagram advertising policy means, allows, prohibits, or requires, including a standalone policy-definition question with no account context. Those questions must use ads_policy_tool, never browser search or memory. Load for a specifically named catalog or feed with an upload or refresh-schedule request; use Ads reads to resolve ownership before writing. Generic unnamed feeds need context. Whether an image, claim or piece of copy may be used in an ad is ALWAYS a Meta Ads task — 'can I use this in an ad', 'is it allowed', 'is this against policy', and any rights, likeness, celebrity, logo or trademark question about advertising with an image, including a follow-up about one just generated. Those are ads-policy questions, not general legal ones. An ad request uses the campaign workflow unless explicitly only an image or organic post.

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。

Fresh-session security questionnaire response for {{projectName}}. Parses a new inbound questionnaire from {{questionnaire_label}} in Gmail, matches each question to our vetted knowledge base of approved answers and policies, drafts responses in the vendor's own format (SIG, CAIQ, or a custom spreadsheet), flags anything it can't answer confidently, and posts the completed draft to {{security_channel}} — holding it for security to review before it goes back to the prospect.

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 Research Question Refiner - Prevents Mode Collapse and derives differentiated research questions Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Modal question avoidance, alternatives presentation, differentiated RQ recommendation Use when: refining research ideas, formulating research questions, clarifying scope Triggers: research question, 연구 질문, PICO, SPIDER, research idea

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 a coherent, whole-paper mathematical modeling solution framework from a complete contest problem. Use after the user supplies a CUMCM or other modeling problem and asks for modeling ideas, an overall solution plan, question-by-question analysis, candidate-model comparison, model-selection reasons, innovations, validation, or cross-question linkage. For every question, explain the task and mathematical essence, compare multiple feasible models in tables, recommend a route with explicit reasons, and keep all questions connected through shared data, variables, parameters, constraints, and validation.

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。

Create, write, or manage Meta ads and assets: ad copy, campaigns, spend, reports, audiences, catalogs, product feeds, feed refresh schedules, experiments, and policy. Always load for any request to create or write an ad, or to advertise a product or service, even when no platform is named; this includes sensitive or restricted categories. Always load for any question asking what a Meta, Facebook, or Instagram advertising policy means, allows, prohibits, or requires, including a standalone policy-definition question with no account context. Those questions must use ads_policy_tool, never browser search or memory. Load for a specifically named catalog or feed with an upload or refresh-schedule request; use Ads reads to resolve ownership before writing. Generic unnamed feeds need context. Whether an image, claim or piece of copy may be used in an ad is ALWAYS a Meta Ads task — 'can I use this in an ad', 'is it allowed', 'is this against policy', and any rights, likeness, celebrity, logo or trademark question about advertising with an image, including a follow-up about one just generated. Those are ads-policy questions, not general legal ones. An ad request uses the campaign workflow unless explicitly only an image or organic post.

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。

Drafts answers to the questions in a received RFP, RFQ or tender from the organisation's past responses, answer library, case studies, policies and other documents provided: one row per buyer question with a draft answer marked Reused, Adapted or Missing, its source and date, and a legal or pricing review flag on every answer touching terms, liability, warranties, insurance, data protection or price. Use when the user asks to "draft our RFP response", "answer this tender from our past proposals", "pre-fill the bid questions", "first pass at the RFQ answers" or "reuse our previous bid content". Do not use for writing the buyer's own RFP or requirements, use rfp-requirements-pack instead; for security or due diligence questionnaires use vendor-security-questionnaire-prefill; for scoring received supplier responses use rfp-comparison-pack. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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 sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-review instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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 set of questions (form exports, helpdesk logs, meeting Q and A, chat threads, a plain list) plus the source documents the user supplies into a DRAFT FAQ grouped by theme: every answer quoted or paraphrased from a named source with a reference, verbatim quotes for dates, figures, eligibility and obligations, UNKNOWN where the sources are silent, a source register with precedence, a conflicts table and a routing list of unanswered questions to owners. Use when the user asks to "build an FAQ from these documents", "answer these questions from the policy", "turn the Q and A into an FAQ page", "group these questions and answer them from the guide" or "what do our documents say about these questions". Do not use for the manager FAQ of a changed HR policy, use policy-change-briefing instead; for checking whether a document's own claims are evidenced, use claims-evidence-map. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Break a stuck or complex problem into the smallest sub-question that, if answered, unlocks the next step — then answer it and repeat until the path forward is clear. Load when a problem feels genuinely stuck, when reasoning keeps circling, or when deep-thinking diagnoses a Socratic frame. Also triggers on "I keep going in circles", "what is the real question here", "help me reason through this step by step", "unstick my thinking", "recursive questioning", "what is the root question". Based on the recursive Socratic questioning method (EMNLP 2023) which outperforms CoT and Tree-of-Thought on complex reasoning tasks.

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。

[omh] Vague, underspecified request: one-question-at-a-time clarification. Use when the user says: deep-interview, interview me, clarify, feature shaping, ambiguous product request, one question, 要件を詰めて, 曖昧な要求.

Stress-test a decision or claim through a sharp, fair Q&A — the questions a good lawyer or skeptical friend would ask before you commit. Use when asked to cross-examine me, ask me hard questions about this, interrogate my plan, or make me defend this. Produces a sequenced line of probing questions (from clarifying to challenging to the killer question), space to answer, and a debrief on where your answers were strong, evasive, or exposed a gap — so weaknesses surface in private before they surface in public.

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 a teacher-drafted central historical question for its capacity to drive genuine historical inquiry. Use when assessing whether a question will generate real evidence-weighing or produce shallow responses.

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。

Ask Questions If Underspecified workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.

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。