「reviewer」の検索結果

Scrum-inspired paper review, revision, and R&R workflow. Handles docx/tex/md/PDF in English or Chinese. Auto-detects manuscript stage, estimates sprint count, runs multi-lens review (Contribution/Rigor/Writing/Editor), generates prioritized revision backlog, exports MD/DOCX/PDF/HTML reports. Use when asked to review a paper, revise based on reviewer comments, handle R&R, respond to peer review, plan paper revision sprints, or when user types /ps or /papersprint.

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。

Address actionable GitHub pull request review comments for xquic. Use when asked to handle PR review feedback, requested changes, unresolved inline threads, or reviewer comments while preserving unrelated edits.

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。

Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.

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。

Adversarial plan review by 3 independent reviewers (Feasibility, Completeness, Scope & Alignment) before presenting to user.

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 asks to review, verify, or audit a report, manuscript, or analysis in the workspace for traceability — resolving citations, flagging numbers with no source, and checking figures against the code that generated them. Emits a structured review block the app renders as reviewer findings. Verifies traceability, never "correctness".

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 ONLY when the user asks to check, validate, review or audit analysis code for scientific correctness, or when you are the reviewer agent running its checks. Never run it unprompted as part of ordinary analysis work. Covers physics, earth/geo, biology, chemistry, social science and bioprocess/fermentation. Runs a deterministic domain-correctness gate that catches code which runs but is scientifically wrong (unit/dimension mismatch, Euclidean distance on lat/lon without a CRS, 0-based/1-based coordinate and strand errors, impossible SMILES valence, uncorrected multiple comparisons, averaging a categorical code, unconstrained kinetic-parameter fits, kLa computed from raw DO instead of the driving force, arithmetic mean of raw CFU counts, ANOVA/Tukey with no assumption check, a curvature DOE design fit with a first-order model, an ML model fit across process scales with no correction). Surfaces structured findings; never claims the code is correct.

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 to any non-trivial work, not just bulk work: edits, migrations, analyses, checks. Build the tool that does it or proves it (codemod, script, generator, or a skill your subagents follow) instead of working by hand. The tool is the artifact a reviewer can rerun.

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 "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.

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。

Keep a reviewable decision trail for long-running or unattended work: a TSV log with one row per decision (what, why, evidence, result). Local by default; commit it when a reviewer needs the trail to trust the result. Use for /show-me-your-work, autonomous or multi-phase runs, or work a human reviews after stepping away.

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 to multi-step work (sweeps, migrations, runs of similar edits) and to how you stack commits and PRs. Break work into small units that each end in a verifiable state, check each before the next, and order delivery so the sequence proves itself to a reviewer.

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。

Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.

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。

Prove that the file you are about to send, publish, or hand off IS the thing you mean — before it leaves your hands. Rebuild from source, check integrity, diff the derived artifact against its source, and require the recipient to echo what they received. Use before sending a paper/PDF for review, shipping a release or replication package, handing files to a coauthor or collaborator, uploading anything to an external reviewer or model, or publishing. Prevents an entire review/QA cycle from being spent on defects that exist only in the artifact, not in the work.

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。

Scaffold a new TikZ diagram from the snippet gallery with prevention rules pre-applied (explicit node dimensions, coordinate map, directional edge labels). Compiles standalone, invokes tikz-reviewer with citations from tikz-measurement.md, and loops on revisions until APPROVED.

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。

Comprehensive manuscript review with three modes: single-pass (default), --adversarial critic-fixer loop, and --peer [journal] simulated peer-review pipeline (editor + 2 dispositioned referees + editorial decision, calibrated to a target journal). R&R continuation via --peer --r2/--r3; hostile-editor stress test via --peer --stress; reviewer-disposition variance reporting via --peer --variance N. Auto-invokes /review-r + /audit-reproducibility on referenced scripts unless --no-cross-artifact.

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。

Stress-test a finding against the choices you did not make. Enumerates the discrete forks a competent analyst could have taken (measure definition, sample filter, control set, clustering level, weighting, functional form), runs the specification grid, and reports the distribution rather than a point estimate — then attacks the identifying assumption with named, computable sensitivity statistics. Use when the user says "is this robust", "challenge this result", "specification curve", "multiverse", "how sensitive is this", "what if I'd used a different measure", "stress-test my estimate", or before a result becomes a headline claim. NOT a reviewer of prose or code — it challenges the CLAIM.

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。

Create a durable Architecture Review Record from a confirmed System Architecture Reviewer scope, evidence, pillar analysis, trade-offs, and dispositions

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。

Reviews skill quality with evidence-based design rubrics and read-only batch inventories. Use for self-review, external skill or repository audits, and authorized auto-PR improvements. Separates design quality from measured task benefit and host compatibility.

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 Chinese annual self-review (述职报告 / 年终总结) for a performance cycle: results against OKR or KPI with evidence, the two or three things that mattered most, honest lessons, and next year's plan, in the form Chinese employers expect. Use when asked 帮我写年终总结, 写述职报告, 年度绩效自评, 半年总结, or a year-end review in Chinese. Produces the review in Chinese, a one-page summary for the presentation, a data appendix, and likely questions from the reviewer.

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。

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints. Output: optimized detailed outline ready for systematic writing (use with academic-paper-composer skill).

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 publication-ready ML/AI/Systems papers for NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, COLM, OSDI, NSDI, ASPLOS, SOSP. Use when drafting papers from research repos, structuring arguments, verifying citations, or preparing camera-ready submissions. Includes LaTeX templates, reviewer guidelines, and citation verification workflows.

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。

Compare independent opinions from several models or contexts without inflating agreement. Use when: wanting a second opinion or debate, or summarizing several reviewers' results.

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。

Используй только внутри активного Codex Project Autopilot-проекта для verification/handoff; не включай для обычного code review вне автопилота.

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 reviewing a DataFusion Comet pull request. Covers the workflow that applies to every PR and routes to the area-specific review skills for expressions, FFI, memory management, shuffle, and Iceberg writes. Provides guidance to a human reviewer rather than posting comments.

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 packaging AISTATS code, data, proofs, simulation scripts, notebooks, random seeds, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or public post-acceptance artifacts, even when there is no separate artifact badge. Covers what statistically minded AISTATS reviewers inspect first and how to make Monte Carlo studies turnkey.

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。