403건 · 관련도순
Skeptical analysis and critique of claims, plans, and code without taking anyone at face value. Use when the user says "don't trust me", wants adversarial review, red-teaming, assumption checking, or verification that generated or proposed code is actually correct. Triggers on skepticism, critique everything, verify claims, challenge assumptions, red team, devil's advocate, prove it, smell test.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Perform a holistic, human-reviewer-style critique of the currently staged Git changes (or, with `--unstaged`, of the unstaged and untracked changes, with `--branch`, of a branch against its base, or, with `--commit`, of a single commit) and emit an approve/reject verdict with prioritized, severity-tagged, line-cited findings. Use when the user wants the staged diff, a branch, or a commit "reviewed", "critiqued", or "code-reviewed".
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Builds, revises, restyles, and critiques deliberate, editable Feishu / Lark whiteboards from content, references, existing SVGs, or live boards. Use for whiteboards, infographics, diagrams, system maps, timelines, decision boards, posters, and visual explainers that need factual fidelity, strong hierarchy, intentional composition, and evidence-based review rather than a generic grid of equal cards. Routes creation, revision, and critique through separate playbooks; commits to a content-and-design contract before drawing; validates deterministic SVG defects; renders and inspects the actual artifact; and uses an independent final reviewer for material deliveries.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
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
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Evaluate design from a UX perspective with Nielsen's heuristics scoring, anti-pattern detection, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Report-only. Triggers on critique, UX review, design feedback, how does this look, evaluate the design, component review.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when independent proposals on a contested decision need cross-critique before choosing, reusing the original authors. Not for parallel multi-stance investigation: use council.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Run a strict multi-iteration Reflex Loop with phases (PLAN, PRODUCE||PREPARE, EVALUATE, CRITIQUE, REFINE) to improve an artifact until quality gates pass or iteration limits are reached. Use when user asks for iterative refinement, quality-gated generation, or "generate -> critique -> refine" loops.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Run a strict multi-iteration Reflex Loop with phases (PLAN, PRODUCE||PREPARE, EVALUATE, CRITIQUE, REFINE) to improve an artifact until quality gates pass or iteration limits are reached. Use when user asks for iterative refinement, quality-gated generation, or "generate -> critique -> refine" loops.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Run structured design critiques with frameworks for feedback that is honest, specific, and actionable.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
UI design and implementation for real product surfaces with taste-first critique, reference routing, project-specific design briefs, variation comparison, and implementation verification. Use when Codex should redesign, build, polish, or critique frontend UI by reading project context, exploring taste, routing through `references/catalog.md`, synthesizing `PROJECT_DESIGN.md` or `design.md`, using investment gates to avoid wrong taste/reference/scope, implementing in the existing stack, and evaluating whether the result is actually better. Best for app screens, dashboards, landing pages, query tools, product surfaces, and design explorations; not for backend-only work or tiny cosmetic edits.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Invoke a Rubber Duck Reviewer subagent to independently critique plans and implementations before proceeding. Use when the agent is about to implement a non-trivial plan (multi-file changes, architectural decisions, security-sensitive logic, database schema changes), after completing a self-contained unit of work (module, endpoint, feature), when stuck or facing repeated failures (same test fails 2+ times, unexpected results), or when the agent wants independent validation of assumptions and design decisions. Triggers on any non-trivial implementation task where independent critique would catch blind spots before they become costly mistakes.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Processes eDNA metabarcoding from raw paired-end reads to species tables, navigating ASV (DADA2, UNOISE3) vs OTU (swarm v2) decision (Callahan 2017 vs Schloss multi-copy-16S critique), marker/primer choice (Leray COI, MiFish 12S, 515F/806R 16S, ITS2) with primer-specific bias, OBITools3 v3 command-name break (obi stats plural; .tar.gz taxonomy), tag-jumping with dual-indexing (Schnell 2015; NovaSeq 10x MiSeq), decontam as screening-not-classifier (Davis 2018), read-counts-not-abundance critique (Lamb 2019), site-occupancy modeling (Ficetola 2015), Naive-Bayes calibration limits (Bokulich 2018), and eDNA decay (Strickler 2015). Use when going from raw eDNA FASTQ to species tables, picking marker + denoising pipeline, deciding whether read counts represent abundance, applying occupancy modeling, configuring OBITools3 v3, or interpreting decontam output. Not for clinical 16S microbiome (see microbiome/amplicon-processing).
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Frontend UI design, critique, audit, polish. Use when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Harvests a DESIGN.md from an existing codebase, critiques it against the actual code, and applies safe quick-win fixes. Three modes harvest / critique / fix. Shells out to `npx @google/design.md lint` for structural validation; never reimplements Google's linter. The on-ramp that makes DESIGN.md adoptable for every existing repo, not just greenfield projects.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Marp形式プレゼンテーションの専門レビュー・評価・改善スキル。 10軸スコアリング（100点満点）で品質を定量評価し、具体的な改善コード付きで提案する。 Use when the user asks to: - Review, evaluate, or critique a Marp presentation / プレゼンをレビュー / 評価 / 添削 - Improve, polish, or upgrade existing slides / スライドを改善 / ブラッシュアップ - Check slide quality, score slides, or audit a deck / スライドの品質チェック / 採点 - "このプレゼンどう？" "スライドを見てほしい" "プレゼン資料のフィードバック" Reads .md files with Marp frontmatter, scores across 10 dimensions, and outputs a detailed review report with concrete before/after code improvements. Works as a companion to the marp-slides skill (generation → review → improvement cycle).
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Run taste-informed design reviews using Observation > Principle > Question. Use when facilitating design critiques, improving feedback quality on a team, or building a shared vocabulary for quality.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Precise language for design feedback. Ban vague words. Name what you actually see. Use when giving design feedback, running critiques, or training teams to communicate about quality.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Critique a user interface (screenshot, running page, HTML/CSS, mockup or description) and return severity-ranked findings with evidence and a concrete fix for each. Use when the user asks for design feedback, a UI review, "what's wrong with this screen", or a pre-launch polish pass.
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.
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.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.