Results for “evaluation”

Researches and recommends programming technologies, libraries, and architectural approaches with verified references from official documentation.

Summarize a contributor's Git history, a provided work log, or both into a concise, review-friendly self-evaluation for quarterly, semi-annual, or promotion cycles.

Provides technical leadership frameworks for architecture decisions, engineering team scaling, technology strategy, and technical debt assessment.

Evaluates the naturalness, speaker similarity, and real-time synthesis speed of a Mandarin speech cloning system across diverse practical application scenarios.

Adversarial robustness and ML safety specialist. Use when the user asks to talk to Viper, requests the adversary, or needs failure mode analysis, attack surface review, and robustness evaluation.

Audits medical LLM benchmarks across five lifecycle phases using 46 medically tailored criteria to assess clinical relevance, data integrity, safety-critical capabilities, validity, and governance.

Benchmarks LLM bias by scoring responses to automatically generated open-ended questions across sensitive attributes, producing a composite fitness score from 0 to 5.

Identify and analyze 3-5 distinct customer segments with demographics, jobs-to-be-done, pain points, and product fit analysis for market opportunity evaluation.

Create a comprehensive company research brief with executive quotes, product strategy, and organizational context for competitive analysis, partnership evaluation, interview preparation, or market entry decisions.

Estimate market size using TAM, SAM, and SOM with top-down and bottom-up approaches for market opportunity assessment, investor pitches, or market entry evaluation.

Routes quality reviews to specialized critic agents based on file type or flags, covering peer review, code review, and manuscript polish.

Route research prompts to evidence, retrieval, scraping, data, market, or scientific research skills. Use when prompts mention deep research, current facts, citations, Exa, iterative retrieval, search-first, scraping, data pipelines, PubMed, USPTO, gget, literature review, or scholar evaluation.

Access AI-ready drug discovery datasets and benchmarks from Therapeutics Data Commons, covering ADME, toxicity, drug-target interactions, and molecular generation with standardized splits and evaluation metrics.

Conducts end-to-end user research, from study design through behavioral insight synthesis, using frameworks like Nielsen's Heuristics, SUS, and User Journey Mapping.

Simulates a NeurIPS/SC/ICSE-style peer review with five reviewer personas (HPC, ML, Stats, Reproducibility, Devil's Advocate) that verify every claim against actual result data before submission.

Benchmarks energy-function-based safe control algorithms on the BIS (Benchmark of Interactive Safety) dataset, scoring safety, efficiency, and hybrid performance in human-robot and robot co-working scenarios.

Provides domain knowledge of Korean government and private funding program announcement systems, evaluation criteria, and key program characteristics, including TIPS, Early-Stage Startup Package, Startup Growth Technology Development, and AI Voucher.

Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality by assessing experimental design, identifying biases and confounders, and applying evidence grading frameworks like GRADE and Cochrane Risk of Bias.

VS-Enhanced Evidence Quality Appraiser - Prevents Mode Collapse with context-adaptive quality assessment Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Avoids automatic tool application, delivers research-specific evaluation strategies Use when: appraising study quality, assessing risk of bias, grading evidence Triggers: quality appraisal, RoB, GRADE, Newcastle-Ottawa, risk of bias, methodological quality

Verifies claims, articles, screenshots, and URLs through source-grounded analysis with an evidence ledger, source credibility evaluation, and manipulation detection. Supports quick checks, full fact-check cards, two-source comparisons, and prebunking in multiple languages and policy contexts.

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints. Output: optimized detailed outline ready for systematic writing (use with acade