Results for “formal-concept-analysis”

VS-Enhanced Theoretical Framework Architect with Critique & Visualization Full VS 5-Phase process: Modal theory avoidance, Long-tail exploration, differentiated framework presentation Absorbed A3 (Devil's Advocate) critique and A6 (Conceptual Framework Visualizer) capabilities Use when: building theoretical foundations, designing conceptual models, deriving hypotheses, critiquing frameworks, visualizing models Triggers: theoretical framework, 이론적 프레임워크, conceptual model, 개념적 모형, hypothesis derivation, critique, devil's advocate, 반론, visualization, diagram

根据研究者提供的**研究计划书（Research Proposal）**执行基于**外国（美国/欧盟/英国/日本/跨国）制度环境**的公司金融类实证研究全流程。**启动后第一件事：根据计划书的主题、识别策略、贡献边际与样本范围，从外国 CF 顶刊池（AER/QJE/JPE/JF/JFE/RFS/JFQA/JAR/JAE/MS/JCF/JBF 等 25+ 期刊）中推荐 5 本最匹配的目标期刊（[J1]–[J5]），等待研究者明确选定一本；该期刊决定 main.tex 的 bibliographystyle、Section 骨架、Introduction 风格与表注规范**。然后用 Python 完成数据清洗、描述性统计、基准回归、内生性检验（IV/2SLS、DML）、平行趋势、异质性、机制、稳健性检验与图表绘制。LaTeX 表格和图像严格遵循 template/ 示例格式，研究逻辑与排版严格遵循 rule/ 下的《通用实证研究逻辑与规范总结》与《回归表写作规范总结》。数据集与政策集从 asset/ 中按计划书中的关键词检索（WRDS / NBER/Fed releases / FRED / 全球宏观库）。**当计划书预期的实证结果无法实现时（系数不显著、平行趋势不通过、IV 弱工具、机制不成立等），skill 自动切换备选方案直至完成研究项目**。最终交付物：Python 代码 + LaTeX 表格 + 图像（.pdf/.png）。触发条件：研究者提交研究计划书（含 X→Y 假设、识别策略、样本、政策冲击等）。

Orchestrate token-heavy research, coding, and testing by delegating bounded tasks to cheaper subagents while reserving Claude Fable for architecture, synthesis, and final review.

Provides a rigorous thinking partner profile that challenges assumptions, calibrates claims to evidence, and improves decision quality under uncertainty.

Interactive idea refinement using Socratic method to develop fully-formed designs

Turn a theory-first research idea into a proof-oriented research plan. Use after idea-creator-analysis, or when the user asks for theorem targets, assumptions, proof obligations, impossibility routes, analysis validation, or a non-experimental plan.

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

通用跨模型审查：Review LLM 对任意研究制品进行独立评审，输出结构化评分、wiki 实体映射与改进建议

Search and fetch Notion pages, synthesize findings, and publish structured briefs, summaries, comparisons, or reports with citations and source links.

当需要将个人知识或经验转化为商业机会，或希望建立有意义的个人发展路径时

Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.

Structures a systematic legal and compliance review of contracts, policies, or technical decisions — identifying key clauses, risks, and questions for counsel. Use when asked to review a contract, check compliance implications, flag legal risks in a technical design, or prepare for a legal consultation. Always surfaces work for qualified counsel; never replaces legal advice.

Analyzes type design for encapsulation, invariant expression, usefulness, and enforcement, providing scores and improvement suggestions.

Generate paid-ad campaign concepts, messaging, copy, creative briefs, and production plans grounded in a validated brand profile, campaign objective, and platform requirements.

Guides researchers through structured ideation frameworks to discover high-impact research directions.

Creates or updates a canonical founder context document capturing company, product, market, team, and fundraising facts so downstream workflows operate on concrete data.

Audits hidden assumptions in decisions or beliefs by classifying them into fact, convention, belief, or interest-driven, ranking by fragility and impact, then rebuilding conclusions from verified premises. Supports English and Chinese.

Give a decisive, project-grounded point of view in the subject's own shape: a graded verdict on an external-adoption question, a holistic take on a document, or a position on a user-supplied approach set. Use for a solo POV, a mid-session second opinion, a named-peer cross-check, any request to consult other models or reconcile their opinions, an `oracle` panel, or a correction-cost-gated proactive cross-check offer. Not for findings review (use ce-doc-review), neutral explainers, or generating options (use ce-ideate or ce-brainstorm).

research-synthesis

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.

Federal acquisition compliance auditor for the active Theseus workspace, backed by live FAR/DFARS text via the vendored `ecfr` MCP. USE WHEN the user asks to audit FAR/DFARS clause coverage, validate that cited clauses actually exist in eCFR (catch fabricated or typo'd numbers), check whether a cited clause has been amended since the solicitation issued, validate regulatory references (NIST SP, DAFI, MIL-STD), check that every "shall" requirement has a deliverable, find missing compliance artifacts, audit proposal_instruction ↔ evaluation_factor coverage (UCF Section L↔M or non-UCF equivalent — FAR 16 task orders, FOPRs, BPA calls, OTAs), or "are we compliant with the proposal instructions?". Cross-references the workspace's clause / regulatory_reference / requirement / deliverable / compliance_artifact entities against live eCFR and flags gaps with severity. Format-agnostic. DO NOT USE FOR drafting compliant prose (use proposal-generator) or extracting clauses (Theseus pipeline does that automatically).

Refactoring Analyst

Pick the right business-model canvas (Lean Canvas, Business Model Canvas, or Value Proposition Canvas) for the stage and fill it with specifics — one segment, one primary canvas, top-3 assumptions, no fluff in the moat or channel boxes. Load when the user asks to fill a business model canvas, lean canvas, value proposition canvas, model this business, map the business model, says "fill the BMC", "make a Lean Canvas", "Value Proposition Canvas for this", "model this idea", "what's the business model", "design the business model". Sub-skill of `venture-exploration`. Hard-bans "everyone" segments, generic channels ("SEO/social/content/ads"), and "unfair advantage = AI/data/network effects" with no concrete asset. Does NOT score viability — for that use `idea-evaluation`.

Generate one high-value follow-up workflow proposal when MoonMind execution quality issues are detected in a run.

从 claim graph 编译论文大纲：编译 evidence map → 叙事结构 → 章节计划 + figure plan + citation plan，Review LLM review 必选

First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English.

Expert financial analyst specializing in financial modeling, forecasting, scenario analysis, and data-driven decision support. Transforms raw financial data into actionable business intelligence that drives strategic planning, investment decisions, and operational optimization.

Audit paid-ad creative assets for quality, platform compliance, fatigue, and performance, producing prioritized refresh or experiment briefs.

Publication Specialist - Writing, Review, Pre-registration & Quality Assurance Light VS applied: Avoids template-based writing + audience-specific message design Absorbed G3 (Peer Review Strategist), G4 (Pre-registration Composer), F1-F3 (Quality functions) capabilities Use when: writing abstracts, creating summaries, peer review response, pre-registration, reporting checklists, reproducibility Triggers: abstract, plain language, press release, summary, communication, peer review, revision, pre-registration, OSF, PRISMA, CONSORT, reproducibility

Stress-test ideas, plans, and decisions using structured critical reasoning across five modes: Socratic questioning, dialectic, pre-mortem, red teaming, and evidence audit.

Draft privacy policies, terms of service, disclaimers, and legal notices with GDPR, CCPA, and other regulatory compliance.

Systematic research methodology for formulating problems, building evidence-based arguments, and communicating findings in academic contexts. For scholarly writing, thesis development, and knowledge contribution. NOT for creative writing, journalistic reporting, or business analytics.

Produces a deep research report on a product, company, concept, or person using the Horizontal-Vertical Analysis method, combining a longitudinal narrative with a cross-sectional competitive comparison, and outputs a beautifully formatted PDF.

Design an error analysis protocol to diagnose the root cause of student mistakes and misconceptions. Use when error patterns appear in student work and targeted feedback is needed.

Advanced data analysis, pattern detection, and insight generation from structured and unstructured datasets. Use when the user wants to analyze data, perform statistical analysis, find insights, detect patterns, identify anomalies, compare segments, test hypotheses, or generate data-driven recommendations. Triggers on phrases like 'analyze data', 'data analysis', 'find insights', 'analyze dataset', 'statistical analysis', 'find patterns', 'compare groups', 'test hypothesis', 'correlation analysis', or 'trend analysis'.