451건 · 관련도순
Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Multi-angle review of responses before delivery. Audits from 4 perspectives -- factual accuracy, logical consistency, completeness, and safety. Use for high-stakes responses where errors have real consequences.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Expert-level biochemistry from a biology perspective covering metabolic pathways, enzyme kinetics, bioenergetics, signal transduction, and the biochemical basis of cellular processes.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, automated anti-pattern detection, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Perform a dual-lens critical review of the specification and plan from both product strategy and engineering risk perspectives before implementation.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Combine independent work from two or more selected agents into one decision-ready research report, design, or proposal. Preserve useful complementary findings, develop stronger combined options, and present material alternatives only when they exist. Use when multiple perspectives should improve the product without forcing consensus or staging disagreement.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Padrões de orquestração multi-agente. Use quando múltiplas tarefas independentes podem rodar com diferentes especialidades de domínio ou quando uma análise abrangente requer múltiplas perspectivas.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Evaluate UI/flows from cognitive load, error prevention, and accessibility perspectives. Apply when reviewing UX, discussing user confusion, high drop-off, or form usability issues.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Extracts what the user actually wants instead of what they think they should want. Achieves this through one-question-at-a-time interview until ~95% confidence about the underlying intent. Use when an ask is underspecified ("build me X" without "for whom" or "why now"), when the user explicitly invokes ("interview me", "grill me", "are we sure?", "stress-test my thinking"), or when you catch yourself silently filling in ambiguous requirements before any plan, spec, or code exists.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Multi-agent board meeting protocol for strategic decisions. Runs a structured 6-phase deliberation: context loading, independent C-suite contributions (isolated, no cross-pollination), critic analysis, synthesis, founder review, and decision extraction. Use when the user invokes /cs:boardroom, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Assembles comprehensive board and investor update decks by pulling perspectives from all C-suite roles. Use when preparing board meetings, investor updates, quarterly business reviews, or fundraising narratives. Covers structure, narrative framework, bad news delivery, and common mistakes.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Explain what the project is and does by design, what it is becoming, the value being built, its architectural trajectory, and where design intent and built reality diverge; publish a retained, ledger-recorded report when the operator requests a high-altitude perspective.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Routes general Convex requests to the right project skill. Use when the user asks which Convex skill to use or gives an underspecified Convex app task.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Routes general Convex requests to the right project skill. Use when the user asks which Convex skill to use or gives an underspecified Convex app task.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Clarify requirements before implementing. Use when serious doubts arise.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Web and App implementation guide for 3D UI. Trigger when user wants actual 3D objects, perspective effects, and spatial depth.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Structured clarification workflow for underspecified requirements. Use before planning to resolve ambiguities through coverage-based questioning. Records answers in spec clarifications section.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Remote-sensing literature search, citation verification, sensor/platform/dataset query strategy, citation file management (.ris/.bib/.enw conversion), and reference management (BibTeX, related articles, DOI/arXiv lookup) across CrossRef, arXiv, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Semantic Scholar, and domain web sources. Use when the user needs coordinated multi-step literature workflows for remote sensing, Earth observation, geospatial AI, GIScience, photogrammetry, SAR, hyperspectral imaging, LiDAR, satellite missions, benchmark datasets, land-cover mapping, change detection, object detection, segmentation, retrieval, or multimodal remote-sensing foundation models. Also trigger on general literature-search needs during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as searching for papers/literature, doing a literature review, verifying a citation, converting citation files, and Chinese phrasings like 文献检索、查文献、找文献、 文献综述检索、查论文、引文核对、参考文献管理、文献去重.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment from the referee perspective rather than an author rebuttal. Use when the user wants a pre-submission review, reviewer report, peer-review style critique, novelty/significance/technical soundness assessment, reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, 审稿人视角评估, 预审稿意见, or Nature reviewer report. Return 3 reviewer reports plus a cross-review synthesis, grounded only in the local Nature reviewer source basis. Also trigger on general pre-submission review requests during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as getting a mock peer review for any journal, critiquing a draft as a reviewer would, assessing novelty/rigor before submission, and Chinese phrasings like 审稿人视角、模拟审稿、预审、帮我审一下论文、投稿前自审、审稿意见模拟、找论文问题.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.