'critique' 검색 결과

Evaluate research papers and scientific claims by examining study design, statistics, bias, and evidence quality. Receive a structured critique of strengths, weaknesses, supported conclusions, and practical improvements, with uncertainty and limitations made explicit.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Reviewing a paper's methods and conclusions
• Assessing evidence quality across studies
• Checking scientific claims in media reports

Review whether a proposal, specification, or design decision addresses the right problem and follows from its goals and constraints. Receive prioritized findings with supporting evidence, confidence, and concrete alternatives or questions that would resolve each concern.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Checking whether a proposal addresses the real problem
• Testing a specification against its goals and constraints
• Comparing alternatives and long-term maintenance costs

Turn a design problem into an RFC, a proposal for review and discussion. Define who benefits and what changes, compare real alternatives, document drawbacks and open questions, and save a linked, validated draft.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Drafting an RFC for a design change
• Clarifying beneficiaries and observable outcomes
• Comparing alternatives and design drawbacks

Document an incident with a sourced timeline, clear user impact, and analysis that separates symptoms, triggers, and underlying causes. Produce a blameless review with action items that specify responsible teams, deadlines, and checkable completion criteria.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Write an outage report grounded in logs and alerts
• Separate incident triggers from underlying causes
• Compare recurring incidents and previous corrective actions

Coordinates multiple AI providers to research, define, implement, and validate development tasks. It supports parallel task decomposition, comparison of proposed solutions, cross-model critique, and quality checks that feed into combined reports and final deliverables.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Sharing migration or refactoring work across AI agents
• Developing a feature from research through validation
• Comparing AI proposals for an architecture decision

Plan a new interface using design reference searches, critique, and contrast checks. Produce colors, typography, reusable styling values, component specifications, layouts, and a style guide tailored to the product, audience, and selected technology.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Planning a dashboard’s colors, typography, and spacing
• Preparing component states and keyboard interaction specs
• Defining responsive layouts and a style guide

Gather advice from multiple language models assigned different roles, then combine their proposals and critiques into a recommendation. Set budget and depth limits while retaining disagreements, minority views, and risks for decisions or implementation planning.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Comparing options before a decision
• Reviewing code or strategy from several perspectives
• Preparing an implementation plan with risks

Compare technical choices through structured discussions among available AI providers. Use independent reviews or rounds of cross-critique to examine risks and trade-offs, then receive a synthesis of agreement, disagreement, recommended decisions, and concrete next steps.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Comparing technology options before making a decision
• Reviewing authentication code for risks
• Examining database schema design from multiple perspectives

Guides logo design from a brand brief through concept comparison, SVG artwork, and checks at small sizes and in one color. After a direction is approved, it prepares variants, icons, presentation materials, and usage guidelines.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Developing logo concepts for a new brand
• Reviewing or refreshing an existing logo
• Creating favicons and app icons from a logo

Review existing charts for clear communication, appropriate chart types, readable labels, scales, and color choices. Get concrete suggestions for simplifying layouts, improving accessibility, and making the visualization suit its intended audience.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Reviewing whether an existing chart communicates clearly
• Fixing chart labels, legends, and scales
• Checking colors and accessibility

Delegate tasks to OpenAI Codex CLI and Google Antigravity CLI from Claude Code. Say 'check with codex' or 'ask gemini for a second opinion' and Claude runs the other agent, keeps a topic-aware session, and critiques the result.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Stop coding agents from shipping generic UI. Use UIZZE's 800,000+ real web and iOS screens to build product-specific interfaces, define a design contract, cover required states, and run a hard finish gate. Use for web or iOS UI design, implementation, redesign, critique, and pre-ship review in Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, and other coding agents.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

[omh] Outside AI critique wanted: consulting an external advisor when configured. Use when the user says: ask, external advisor, ask claude, ask gemini, consult claude, consult gemini, opinion from claude, opinion from gemini.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Run an expert review against Nielsen's heuristics and domain criteria, with severity ratings. Use when you need findings without recruiting participants. For a facilitated team feedback session, use `design-critique` (design-ops).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Establish review gates — criteria, checkpoints, and approval flow. Use when work ships without consistent review. For running one individual session, use `design-critique`.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Provider-agnostic multi-LLM deliberation. Three phases — independent responses, cross-model anonymized ranking, chairman synthesis. Credentials come from explicit plugin configuration or pro-workflow-specific CLI variables. Persists transcript to a wiki page when --wiki <slug> is passed. Use when the user wants multiple AI perspectives, consensus-building, or the "LLM Council" approach for high-stakes reviews, plan critique, or contested learning rules.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Role profile — a reviewer who is fact-seeking, bedrock-seeking, honest, and rejecting. Demands that arguments rest on small facts that cannot be wrong (not on stacked assumptions dressed up as foundation), and that deliberately-unclear concepts be quarantined — never leaked into solid layers, never mixed with each other. Catches the failure mode where designs ship after partial grounding: most of the spec researched, the design feels finished, and the unresearched remainder holds the deal-breaker. Invoke with `/pedantic <target>` (e.g. `/pedantic review this design doc`, `/pedantic review the SDK design`, `/pedantic review this PR`). Probes cover logical structure (definitions, assumptions, boundaries, contradictions, unfalsifiability, vague quantifiers, counterexamples), epistemic honesty (researchable vs. discoverable-only-by-doing), bedrock integrity (assumed-bedrock, leaked uncertainty, mixed unclarity), and design pathology (YAGNI, wrong-layer abstraction, unclear responsibility, fragmentation, over-engineering). Use when you want a hard critique of a plan, design doc, technical doc, code change, or PR description — not a copy edit, not a vibe check.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Doctrine for designing and evolving any **SDK** Grida ships — TypeScript, Rust, or otherwise. "SDK" here means a surface that crosses a foreign-or-foreign-treated boundary: published packages, separately-versioned consumers, FFI bindings, public-by-design modules. An SDK's job is to refuse; a strict, honest surface rejects the wrong contents and keeps the package testable in isolation. Default is "core, not customizable"; customization is the exception, defended by a deciding table. Use when authoring or evolving any such surface — `@grida/*` published packages, engine crates (gridaco/nothing `crates/*`) published or FFI-exported, intent/message vocabularies, any contract a second author will compile against. Internal-only helper packages are welcome to follow, not forced. Companion skill for two-sided contract work: $sdk-seam. Critique partners: $pedantic, $etiology. Related: $naming.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review or audit a design/UI across 6 weighted dimensions with Nielsen's 10 heuristics and a prioritized findings table. Use when the user wants a design critique, quality score, heuristic evaluation, or audit of an existing screen, page, or product before/after build.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Upgrade Three.js games from prototype visuals to premium browser graphics: art-direction critique, procedural model building, material and texture libraries, world prop kits, shaders, VFX, lighting and render pipeline, LOD and instancing, render budgets, and a 10-category visual scorecard. Use when screenshots still look basic or the user asks for premium, AAA, high-fidelity, showcase, or less-basic graphics.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Use for authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Generate journal club slides with background, critique, and discussion.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Launch an intelligent sub-agent with automatic model selection based on task complexity, specialized agent matching, Zero-shot CoT reasoning, and mandatory self-critique verification

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Curates insights from reflections and critiques into CLAUDE.md using Agentic Context Engineering

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.