1.1K skills · sorted by relevance
Break a development task into small requirements with explicit acceptance criteria, then repeat implementation and verification while saving progress. Completion depends on evidence for each requirement and reviewer approval, with configurable reviewers and a final cleanup check.
Create and update 2D DXF drawings from written requirements or CAD geometry using Python and build123d. Prepare cutting profiles and marking layers, check for open contours and duplicate geometry, and review drawings in CAD Viewer.
Prepare interview scheduling drafts by matching Greenhouse interview plans with every panelist’s calendar. Produce two or three available time options, a candidate email, and individual invitation drafts for a coordinator to review and send.
Explore Hugging Face datasets through the Dataset Viewer API. Preview and retrieve rows, search text, filter records, inspect sizes and column statistics, and find Parquet download links for further analysis or data extraction.
Search YouTube by keyword and collect linked video and comment datasets through the BrowserAct API. Gather titles, views, comment text, likes, and reply counts to support audience feedback research and topic monitoring.
Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use as the top-level router for Omniverse Realtime Viewer USD app requests and focused viewer reference documents.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when explaining or planning around AISTATS peer review, OpenReview review release, author-reviewer discussion, reviewer volunteer expectations, reviewer confidentiality, decision criteria, meta-review dynamics, the statistician-heavy reviewer pool, and PMLR proceedings outcomes.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when the user wants to anticipate reviewer questions, select the strongest ablations to present, prepare rebuttals, or identify paper weaknesses before submission. Triggers on phrases like "reviewer questions", "anticipate reviewers", "rebuttal", "paper weaknesses", "defend the paper", or "strengthen the paper".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
原始人スタイル subagent への委譲判断ガイド。`genshijin-investigator` (コード位置特定)、 `genshijin-builder` (1-2ファイル編集)、`genshijin-reviewer` (diff レビュー) を inline作業 or vanilla `Explore` の代わりにスポーンするタイミングを示す。subagent 出力は原始人圧縮 → 主コンテキストに戻る tool-result が約60%縮小 → 長セッション持続。 Trigger: 「subagent 委譲」「genshijin-crew 使用」「investigator/builder/reviewer 起動」「コンテキスト節約」「圧縮 agent 出力」。
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Render the running viewer in a real headless browser and assert on what it drew — element geometry, computed colours, wrap points, truncated labels, console errors. Use when a change moves pixels (navbar/badge/chart layout, CSS, responsive behavior, theme), when a PR says it "needs a visual check", or when reviewing frontend work under src/viewer/assets/. Covers the gap viewer-smoke names: it asserts payload shape, this asserts rendering.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
CesiumJS viewer setup - Viewer, CesiumWidget, widgets, Ion token, Scene configuration, SceneMode, factory helpers, geocoders, platform services. Use when initializing a CesiumJS application, configuring viewer widgets, setting Ion access tokens, creating default terrain or imagery, or bootstrapping a 3D globe.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Simulate rigorous, fair peer review on a paper — in two modes. (A) Red-team YOUR OWN draft before submission to predict the reviews you'll get and get a fix list. (B) Review SOMEONE ELSE'S paper when you're an assigned reviewer or helping your advisor — produce a fair, venue-formatted, submission-ready review. Use whenever the user gives a paper (PDF, .tex, .md, arXiv link, or pasted text) and wants to predict reviews, find weaknesses before reviewers do, stress-test a submission, OR write a real review of another paper. Grounded in official NeurIPS/ICLR/ACL reviewer guidelines; every criticism pinned to a location, and checked against ACL's H1–H17 list of illegitimate critiques. 两种模式:审自己的稿(投稿前红队)/ 审别人的稿(当审稿人或帮导师),按会议官方标准评,绝不脑补、绝不发不正当批评。
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
`.agent/agents/reviewer.md` を入口に、PR差分やローカル差分を日本語でレビューするスキル。ユーザーが「レビュー」「PR確認」「差分確認」「コードレビュー」「reviewer」「レビュー指摘に対応」などを依頼したときに使う。GitHubレビュー指摘の対応（分類・方針提示・Worker委譲・resolved化）も扱う。
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Iterative manuscript improvement workflow where a reviewer agent critiques, an author agent revises, a verifier checks the revision, and the loop repeats until acceptance or a human-pause condition is reached. Use for virtual peer review, reviewer-author revision loops, rebuttal preparation, resubmission polishing, journal paper improvement, response-to-reviewers drafting, and deciding when additional data, experiments, theory, modeling, or author judgment is required before further revision.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
レビュー専用サブエージェント(fable-reviewer・opus-reviewer等)を起動する反復レビュー・ループが共有する起動契約と手順の正本。Agentツールでの同期起動、2ラウンド目以降の同一エージェント継続、レビュー指示文の追加要件、失敗の扱い、1ラウンドを回して結末を出すまでの流れを定義する。内部専用でユーザーが直接使うものではない。
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
PR確認・PRレビューの依頼で、PRまたはremote branchの差分を取得しshared reviewerへ渡す。PR番号・URL・branchを扱い、ローカルの未コミット差分・ファイル指定はreviewerを使う。
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.