「critique」の検索結果

Use this skill when planning, redesigning, or reviewing Xiaohongshu carousel visuals, covers, 3:4 image posts, page-by-page visual direction, image-generation prompts, style selection, layout critique, or XHS captions. It acts as a senior visual director for 小红书图文, not a generic copywriting assistant.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Produces a deep, honest peer-review of how someone uses Claude Code by statistically analyzing their local session data (~/.claude/usage-data/ and ~/.claude/projects/). Trigger whenever the user asks to review, analyze, audit, or critique their own Claude Code usage, workflow, habits, or skill level — including phrases like "analyze my cc usage", "review my cc sessions", "peer review my cc workflow", "deeper than /insights", or any ask for an honest audit of their AI workflow. Also covers portfolio/hiring-manager framings (e.g. "portfolio for Anthropic/OpenAI/xAI"), but ALWAYS ask the user in Step 0 which version to build (self / hr / both) before running — never silently produce an HR report, because that version goes to outsiders and needs explicit privacy setup. The HTML report is laid out ledger-first for SELF (opening band, output/team/leak/trend ledgers, then peer review, 9-dim scoring, try-this-week, case study, claim-indexed evidence). The HR variant is a recruiter version v1: identity card, earned badges (threshold-based, earned-only), allowlist-filtered output ledger, one case study, and a methodology & scope disclosure — no scores, no peer-review memo, no charts.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Draft and revise evidence-grounded academic manuscripts with adaptable author preferences. Use for section writing, implementing structural edits, claim calibration, citation-integrated prose, prose cleanup, standalone review excerpts, and LaTeX template migration. Use paper-review for critique or author responses, and paper-figures-tables for final visual artifacts.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first questioning.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when evaluating a completed or in-progress project across scope, correctness, quality, testing, and learning outcomes using structured Praise-Critique-Grow feedback.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Iterative deep planning with critiques and alternatives. Use when facing complex design decisions, cross-platform changes, native module modifications, or API changes requiring thorough analysis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Load for Senior CTO critique, architectural audit, risk review, sequencing correction, or refinement of an existing implementation-plan triad; edits the requested plan/context/tasks in place without creating a worktree or review file. Not for open-ended CTO advice, product implementation, or implementation workspace setup.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Load only when the user asks for Robin/Rodin neutral mode, Socratic intellectual sparring, steelmanning, anti-echo-chamber critique, or a deep societal/political/religious/economic discussion; not for coding, factual lookup, or ordinary advice.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design. Use when the user says "grill me", "grill mich", "grill mich zu diesem Plan", or explicitly invokes /grill-me. Does NOT fire on generic "review this", "poke holes", "stress-test", "devil's advocate" or "critique" phrasing -- for reviewing an already-written artifact (code, PR, paper) use code-review, 3agenten-review, 7phasen-review or caveman-review instead; grill-me interrogates a still-open plan or idea before it is built.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use for end-to-end website or interface design, redesign, implementation, or major visual polish; orchestrates discovery, references, art direction, systems, build, critique, QA, and release gates.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Universal AI design correction rules — SUPERSEDED. The `impeccable` skill now provides 27 deterministic anti-pattern rules plus a 12-rule LLM critique pass, which are more comprehensive and runtime-enforced via the `impeccable` CLI. This file is kept for backward compatibility — the `impeccable` skill's design laws and anti-patterns take precedence.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Senior Kotlin specialist code review — framework-agnostic. Use whenever the user asks to review, audit, critique, or get feedback on Kotlin code, a file, a class, a function, a module, a diff, a branch, a commit, or a pull request. Judges Kotlin language idioms, logic correctness, architecture and layering, concurrency (coroutines, Flow, structured concurrency, cancellation, race conditions), null safety, exception safety, testability, performance, and security. Detects force-unwraps, unchecked casts, GlobalScope, leaked mutability, broken structured concurrency, hidden side effects, weak abstractions, untestable seams, allocation hot spots, weak crypto, input-validation gaps, and PII logging. Outputs prioritized findings with file:line anchors and minimal-diff fixes. No assumptions about DI framework, UI framework, or build system.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Conclusion Key takeaways Agent reflection is a feedback loop where AI agents critique their own outp

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Runs a 5-seat, role-separated review panel (Journal-Fit Reviewer + 3 peer-review roles + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise; role separation is not a claim of independent error processes. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy, 審查論文, 論文審查, 模擬審查, 同儕審查, 幫我審這篇, 以審查人角度評估, 審查者校準, 논문 심사, 동료 심사, 모의 심사, 심사자 관점에서 평가, 심사자 보정.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality), refactoring, and quality improvement. Use when reviewing code, eliminating code smells, reducing technical debt, refactoring methods, running self-critique loops, or improving maintainability and readability.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluate and improve AI-generated output with explicit rubrics, reflection loops, and stop conditions. Use when building self-critique workflows, evaluator-optimizer pipelines, or acceptance gates for code, docs, analysis, or plans.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Write a structured design review that someone can act on without follow-up questions. Use when giving async design feedback, writing portfolio case studies, or documenting design decisions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Frontend design blueprints with craftsmanship scoring, self-critique loops, and engineering handoff. Aesthetic intelligence against AI homogeneity. Use for: UI/UX design specs, design system creation, visual direction exploration, component design review, design-to-engineering handoff.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Apply critical rationalist epistemology (Popper, Deutsch) to evaluate reasoning, identify errors, and refine understanding. Use when the user explicitly requests help with reasoning - phrases like "help me think this through", "does this make sense", "any flaws in this", "what am I missing", "critique this", "is this reasoning sound", "stress test this idea", "devil's advocate", or any request to evaluate arguments, identify logical problems, or improve thinking. Also use when errors in reasoning are significant enough to materially affect the user's goals, even if not explicitly requested.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Devil's-advocate attack on AI workflow designs — threat model, assumption challenges, code critiques, and hypothetical redesigns with no file edits. Use for "attack this design", devil's advocate, or hostile challenge on agents/tools/summarization/tokens. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or self-review that applies fixes (ai-systems-review). Prefer: this skill → decide → ai-systems-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。