979 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
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。
Read a YouTube Studio audience-retention export and find where viewers actually leave, then say what to change. Use for "why do people stop watching", "my retention is bad", a pasted retention chart or CSV, or "fix my pacing".
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 revising an AISTATS paper for concise AI-statistics framing, theorem-and-experiment clarity, 8-page two-column compression, double-blind wording, reproducibility clarity, statistically careful claims, and assumption-labeling discipline that survives statistician reviewers.
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 auditing an AISTATS submission for OpenReview readiness, abstract/full-paper deadlines, the 8-page submission body, double-blind anonymity, supplementary material, reproducibility checklist, dual-submission policy, reviewer volunteer requirements, desk-reject triggers, and final-week submission sequencing.
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。
Use when planning an AISTATS project timeline from venue fit through abstract submission, full-paper upload, supplementary material, review release, author-reviewer discussion, decision, camera-ready, PMLR publication, registration, presentation, and artifact release, with backward-planning offsets for theory-plus-experiments papers.
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 preparing AISTATS supplementary material, appendices, proof details, code/data archives, simulation scripts, additional tables, and anonymized artifacts under deadline, size, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints, including how to split a theory-plus-experiments paper between body and supplement.
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 positioning an AISTATS submission against AI, machine-learning, statistics, and uncertainty literature, including arXiv preprints, workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, PMLR archival status, and the two-community citation coverage that AISTATS reviewers expect.
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 understanding and navigating Administrative Science Quarterly's (ASQ) developmental, multi-round review process — decision types, reviewer/editor roles, and what each stage expects. Explains the process; it does not draft the response letter (see asq-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。
Use when responding to Advanced Materials reviewer reports and an editor's decision — major or minor revision, or a rejection with a resubmission or transfer path. Structures the response and the manuscript changes; does not perform the underlying new experiments.
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 choosing suggested and opposed referees for an Advanced Materials submission and pre-empting the objections materials reviewers most often raise. Plans referee selection and objection defense; does not write the manuscript or the 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。
Use when drafting the response to an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) R&R after the manuscript has been revised — structuring the response letter and handling reviewer/editor comments. Drafts the response; it does not perform the underlying revisions (do those first).
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。