1.5万 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
This skill should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code 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。
Publication Specialist - Writing, Review, Pre-registration & Quality Assurance Light VS applied: Avoids template-based writing + audience-specific message design Absorbed G3 (Peer Review Strategist), G4 (Pre-registration Composer), F1-F3 (Quality functions) capabilities Use when: writing abstracts, creating summaries, peer review response, pre-registration, reporting checklists, reproducibility Triggers: abstract, plain language, press release, summary, communication, peer review, revision, pre-registration, OSF, PRISMA, CONSORT, reproducibility
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 Review Pipeline Orchestrator - Coordinates systematic literature review automation Manages the complete 7-stage PRISMA 2020 pipeline from research question to RAG system Delegates to specialized agents (I1, I2, I3) while enforcing human checkpoints Use when: conducting systematic reviews, building knowledge repositories, PRISMA automation Triggers: systematic review, PRISMA, literature review automation
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 the R code review protocol on R scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, and professional standards. Produces a report without editing files. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants their existing R code evaluated or audited — not when they want new analysis written. Triggers include: "review my R script", "check my R code", "is my code replication-ready", "audit this R file", "does this code follow conventions", "will this reproduce", "check my analysis script", "code review", "review-r", or when the user has an existing .R file and wants quality feedback rather than new code.
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 covering argument structure, econometric specification, citation completeness, and potential referee objections. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants substantive academic feedback on a paper — not just surface edits. Triggers include: "review my paper", "give me feedback on this draft", "what would a referee say", "anticipate referee objections", "act as a referee", "check my identification strategy", "is my argument convincing", "review this manuscript", "critique my paper", "will this pass review", or any request for deep critique of academic writing beyond typos and grammar.
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。
Recommend AND run open-source AI tools, agents, Claude Code / Codex skills, and MCP servers for any stage of a literature review — searching, reading, extracting, synthesizing, screening, citation-checking, and paper writing. Use when the user asks "what tool should I use to..." OR "install/run/use <tool> to ..." for research/lit-review work: automating a survey or related-work section, PDF→Markdown extraction for LLMs (MinerU/marker/docling), PRISMA / systematic review (ASReview), citation-backed Q&A over PDFs (PaperQA2), wiring papers into Claude/Cursor via MCP (arxiv/paper-search/zotero servers), or chatting with a Zotero library. Ships a launcher (scripts/litrun.py) that installs each tool in an isolated venv and runs it. Curated catalog of 70+ vetted projects. 支持中英文（用于「文献综述工具选型」与「一键安装/运行」）。
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 whether a design is SOUND — solving the right problem, derived from its stated goals and constraints — and emits ranked, evidence-backed findings, not edits. Read when asked to 'review this design', 'is this design sound', 'pressure-test this proposal', 'do a design review', 'does this solve the right problem', 'poke holes in this spec', 'should we build this', or to critique a proposal / spec / ADR / architecture or product decision. Do NOT read when the user wants to AUTHOR one of these — routing a new proposal is frame-a-proposal, a spec is write-a-spec, a decision record is record-a-decision, a postmortem is write-a-postmortem. Do NOT read for code review of a diff, or to fact-check individual claims (that is a correctness pass, a different job).
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。
Drive ONE already selected open pull request in microsoft/apm to mergeable. Classifies copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot] inline review, runs autopilot-pr-review-worker, folds (by default) every recommendation inside the PR's stated scope, pushes to the head branch or a superseding PR that preserves authorship via commit trailers, watches CI to green (`agent-merge` when that skill or `<agent_merge_state>` is present; otherwise `gh pr checks --watch`), and iterates under fixed caps until ready-to-merge, advisory-with-deferred, superseded, or blocked. Plan before any fold, push, or reviewer request. Never spawned by autopilot-pr-review-scheduler. That scheduler is advisory only. Invoke this skill by name when the caller asked to drive a PR to merge.
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 a git diff or explicit file scope for reuse, code quality, efficiency, clarity, and standards issues, then optionally apply safe Codex-driven fixes. Use when the user asks to "simplify code", "review changed code", "check for code reuse", "review code quality", "review efficiency", "simplify changes", "clean up code", "refactor changes", or "run simplify".
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。
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
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。
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
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。
[omh] Postmortem for an outage or SLO miss: postmortems, SLOs, error budgets, incident follow-ups, and service reliability evidence. Use when the user says: reliability-review, reliability review, incident review, incident postmortem, postmortem, post-mortem, slo review, slo.
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。
Security-focused code review checklist and automated scanning patterns. Use when reviewing pull requests for security issues, auditing authentication/authorization code, checking for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, or validating input sanitization. Covers SQL injection prevention, XSS protection, CSRF tokens, authentication flow review, secrets detection, dependency vulnerability scanning, and secure coding patterns for Python (FastAPI) and React. Does NOT cover deployment security (use docker-best-practices) or incident handling (use incident-response).
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。
Have Codex independently review an existing implementation plan while Claude coordinates a bounded revision loop. For automatic reviewer selection from either host, use claudex-loop with mode=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。
当用户明确要求"核查/优化综述 `{主题}_review.tex` 的正文引用"、"运行 research-citation-check"，或要求使用旧名 check-review-alignment skill 时使用。通过宿主 AI 的语义理解逐条核查引用是否与文献内容吻合，只在发现致命性引用错误时对"包含引用的句子"做最小化改写，并优先复用 `research-literature-review` 的渲染脚本输出 PDF/Word，过渡期允许 fallback 到旧名 systematic-literature-review。核心原则：不为了改而改，无法确定是否为致命性错误时保留原样并在报告中警告。⚠️ 不适用：用户只是想生成系统综述正文（应使用 research-literature-review）；用户只是想新增/核对 BibTeX 条目（应使用专门的 bib 管理流程）。
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 a skillshare change before it becomes a pull request, or review an open pull request. Use this skill whenever the user asks to: review a diff, branch, commit range or PR, check a change before opening a PR, run a pre-Codex review, or find what a change missed. It checks correctness, the repository's documented rules, the originating issue or spec, every consumer of a changed concept, and cleanup (reuse, simplification, efficiency, depth of fix), then verifies each finding against the code before reporting it. Read-only unless the user asks for fixes.
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 code changes for bugs and alignment with OpenEnv principles and RFCs. Use when reviewing PRs, checking code before commit, or when asked to review changes. Implements two-tier review model.
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。
When the user wants to plan, script, produce, or optimize App Store Preview videos or Google Play promo videos — the autoplay videos that show in App Store/Play Store search and product pages. Use when the user mentions "App Preview", "preview video", "app store video", "promo video", "Play Store video", "video poster frame", "YouTube promo for Play Store", "30 second app video", "video script", "video specs", or "should I add a preview video". For static screenshots, see screenshot-optimization. For A/B testing the video, see ab-test-store-listing. For broader creative briefs, see screenshot-optimization (covers stills).
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。
When the user's app or update was rejected by Apple App Review or Google Play Review and they need to diagnose why, fix it, and resubmit fast. Use when the user mentions "app rejected", "App Review rejection", "guideline violation", "Apple rejected my app", "Google Play rejected", "Play policy violation", "Resolution Center", "metadata rejection", "binary rejection", "guideline 2.1", "guideline 4.3", "guideline 5.1.1", "Sign in with Apple required", "Apple ID rejection", "Play Store suspension", "appeal", "I need to respond to App Review", or "expedited review". For pre-submission listing health, see aso-audit. For metadata-only fixes, see metadata-optimization.
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。
Determines when and how revenue is recognized — performance obligations, contract terms that change the answer, and the deal structures that create accounting problems. Use this to work out how a contract should be recognized, review a non-standard deal before it is signed, understand deferred revenue, or spot terms that would delay or reverse recognition.
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 extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability 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。
SkillsBench task PR review — classifies the task track (standard / research / multimodal), runs static policy checks against the track-specific rubric, benchmarks the task across oracle plus Claude and Codex (with and without skills), audits trajectories for cheating and skill invocation, and produces a `pr-N-task-timestamp-run.txt` review report alongside a `prN.zip` bundle of trajectories. Use when reviewing a SkillsBench task PR (by number, branch, or local task path), when the user asks to review a task, run benchmarks on a PR, audit a submission, classify a task as research or multimodal track, or prepare a comment to post on a SkillsBench PR.
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。
Reference for paired-reversal handling on GL batch tapes: an RV row whose ref-trace points at an earlier row cancels BOTH legs (the RV and the row it references) — but ONLY when the two value-dates fall within the shop's reversal settlement window; an RV that references a too-old posting is NOT a cancellation and posts one-sided. Useful when the posting tape carries a reference-trace column alongside reversal codes and the running balance is off by twice the reversal magnitude, or by a whole leg on stale references.
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。
Turn an incoming set of findings — from an AI reviewer, a referee report, a code review, a linter, or a second model — into verified fixes, without letting a confident misread damage correct work. Every finding is a CANDIDATE until checked against the actual source. Use whenever you receive review comments, audit findings, or a critique you did not write yourself, especially when the reviewer is a model or when the volume is too large to check by feel.
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。