「reviewer」の検索結果

Use when organizing AAAI supplementary material, including the technical appendix, multimedia appendix, and code/data ZIPs, while respecting that AAAI supplements are due with the paper, treated as immutable after submission, must stay double-blind, and should never hide main-paper-critical evidence from reviewers who skim the appendix.

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 drafting the revision and response letter after an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) revise-and-resubmit — structuring point-by-point responses to the action editor and reviewers across a multi-round developmental process. Drafts the response after revisions; it does not interpret the decision letter (amj-review-process).

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 drafting an AAMAS rebuttal to preliminary OpenReview reviews, covering the double-blind constraint, the no-new-results and no-revised-paper norms, how to answer game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewers at once, and how to give the area chair a clean acceptance rationale within a short response window.

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 strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

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。

Three modes for CS-conference papers (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV vision, ACL/EMNLP/NAACL NLP, ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/AAAI ML). DIRECT-EDIT mode (common): the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the manuscript (LaTeX or Markdown) is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit with author sign-off (use for 改这段 / 把中文想法写成 latex / polish / de-AI / translate / compress a passage). REVIEW mode (occasional, pre-submission): harden the paper through an adversarial courtroom review engine (N holistic domain reviewers / contestability routing / two-sided trial / three-way verdict / clerk-converged multi-round loop) with consensus-gated, author-signed revisions (use for review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review). AUTO mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal): run the review-revise loop toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing risky ones. Resolves all inputs at runtime, no hardcoded paths. Not a from-scratch drafter (use ml-paper-writing) and not an official-venue rebuttal.

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。

Constructs and validates polygenic risk scores using LDpred2-auto, SBayesRC, MegaPRS, PRS-CS, PROSPER, MUSSEL, BridgePRS, JointPRS, PRSmix, or PGS Catalog Calculator with ancestry-aware reference panels (HapMap3, UKB-LD), ancestry-conditional calibration, and PRS-RS reporting standards. Use when computing PRS for cohorts, applying absolute-risk transformation, assessing cross-ancestry portability (Martin 2017 / Ding 2023 continuous ancestry), or auditing PRS manuscripts against the 22-item PRS-RS reviewer checklist.

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。

Report the compatibility redirect to `ap-independent-checker`; this retired role cannot perform new 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。

This skill should be used when user asks to "fetch overleaf review comments", "address overleaf reviews", "apply overleaf comments", "review my overleaf paper", "sync overleaf feedback to local", "what comments are on my overleaf doc", or wants to act on Overleaf reviewer feedback in a local git-tracked LaTeX repo.

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 senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck: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。

Use when running or scheduling periodic repository review cycles that must dispatch the correct reviewer, aggregate findings, and escalate outcomes into reports, issues, or corrective PRs across API contracts, documentation freshness, code quality, and CloudBase skill quality.

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。

Review, run, debug, and verify approved MATLAB or Beita Tianyuan modeling code against its plan, data contract, method decision, compatibility constraints, and experiment outputs, saving one compact JSON 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。

Review, run, debug, and verify approved Python modeling code against its code plan, data contract, method decision, risk conditions, and experiment outputs, saving one compact JSON 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。

Create or refresh reviewer-facing PR titles and descriptions. Use when opening a PR, updating its title or body, or preparing branch changes for 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。

Run an automated codex⇄Claude debate to consensus — no round cap, no deadlock exit. Two explicit subcommands. `review` (also the bare/back-compat default) — codex (reviewer) critiques the current diff and a Claude subagent (author) fixes/disputes, looping until they agree. `answer` — Claude and codex each answer a freeform prompt in parallel, then cross-check until they agree, and a unified answer is returned. Use when the user types `/codex-debate`, asks to "have codex review this", "run the codex debate", "review this PR with codex", "argue this with codex until you agree", or passes a question to "have Claude and codex debate/answer until they agree".

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。

Pre-publish QA framework for content. Brief adherence, voice consistency, fact accuracy, structure and clarity, AI-content audit, SEO and AEO compliance, internal linking and schema validation, QA at scale via sampling, the QA workflow, and the discipline that distinguishes catch-problems QA from checkbox QA. Triggers on editorial QA, content review, pre-publish review, content audit, content QA process, AI-content audit, hallucination check, content sampling, programmatic QA, voice consistency check, brief adherence check. Also triggers when a content team is shipping sloppy work, when AI-co-authored content is reaching publish unaudited, when a QA process burns reviewers out, or when a programmatic SEO set needs sampling discipline. On a voice consistency check, this skill owns checking a draft against an existing voice system at the publish gate; use `brand-voice` when the voice system itself needs defining or documenting.

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。

Identifies security vulnerabilities, generates structured audit reports with severity ratings, and provides actionable remediation guidance for SAST, DevSecOps, and compliance.

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。

Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities, code smells, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable 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。

Multi-pass code review orchestration with parallel reviewers for quality, security, performance, and test coverage

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。

Score a pitch deck's structure and content against YC, Sequoia, and a16z heuristics. Use before sending a deck to investors, practicing a pitch, or reviewing a seed or Series A fundraising deck.

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。

Review REST API designs for quality, consistency, and breaking changes. Lints OpenAPI specs, generates scorecards, and detects breaking changes between versions. Use when designing APIs, reviewing contracts, or managing API versioning.

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。

Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, and Kotlin. Analyzes PRs for complexity, risk, SOLID violations, and code smells. Use when reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or generating review checklists.

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。

中文代码审查专家 - 生成详细的中文代码审查报告

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 writing Agent Relay or Ricky workflows that must loop review, fix, and validation with fresh agent context until independent signoff agents, typically Claude and Codex, both agree the work is comprehensively complete. Covers fresh-context iterations, repairable gates, dual reviewer verdict contracts, iteration-count reporting, PR signoff comments, and blocked-state handling.

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 outside counsel invoices and related billing data for an in-house legal department, including LEDES or e-billing exports, OCGs, approved rates, discounts, budgets, AFAs, and staffing rules. Starts with internal comparisons before bringing in external data. Produces invoice review findings, MBR/QBR scorecards, dispute logs, and management reports. For demonstration purposes only and not professional 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。