53 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Reactome is a free, open-source, curated and peer-reviewed pathway database. Their goal is to provide intuitive bioinformatics tools for the visualization, interpretation and analysis of pathway knowledge.
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 a phase plan should be peer-reviewed by other AI CLIs before execution, or the user asks for a cross-AI review. Invokes Gemini, Claude, Codex, or OpenCode and writes REVIEWS.md for /gsd-plan-phase --reviews.
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 peer review for analytical work. Use when reviewing teammates' analysis, providing constructive feedback, or establishing analysis quality standards.
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 independent peer review via Claude. Use when the user asks to "peer review", "peer review my code", "peer review my plan", "get a second opinion", or "independent 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 independent peer review via Codex. Use when the user asks to "peer review", "peer review my code", "peer review my plan", "get a second opinion", or "independent 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。
Structured peer review of manuscripts and grants. 7-stage evaluation: initial assessment, section review, statistical rigor, reproducibility, figure integrity, ethics, writing. Covers CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA and report structure. For evidence quality see scientific-critical-thinking; scoring see 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。
Query bioRxiv/medRxiv preprints via REST API. Search by DOI, category, or date range; retrieve metadata (title, abstract, authors, category, DOI, version history) and PDFs. No auth. For peer-reviewed biomedical use pubmed-database; broader scholarly search use openalex-database.
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 checking your own manuscript before submission from a reviewer's perspective. Returns anticipated Major/Minor comments with fixes, including numerical, citation and leakage checks, with an optional multi-reviewer panel. Someone else's paper is /peer-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 reviewing someone else's manuscript for a journal, such as after a review invitation or for a revised R1/R2 version. Drafts a structured, constructive review in the journal's format. Never for your own manuscript; that is /self-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。
Educator peer review management for Canvas LMS. Tracks completion rates, analyzes comment quality, flags problematic reviews, sends targeted reminders, and generates instructor-ready reports. Trigger phrases include "peer review status", "how are peer reviews going", "who hasn't reviewed", "review quality", or any peer review follow-up task.
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 review and fix loop for code, specs, plans, and migration manifests.
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 how many problems the two brains found: mutual review (the other model checks the work, from the peer-review records) and self-check (an agent finds its own error in its own conversation, judged by that agent's own model), side by side. Use when the owner asks whether the second agent or the reviews are worth it, or wants the week's review 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。
Structured peer-review of academic 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。
Launches and configures the standalone presubmit CLI, an API-driven adversarial peer-review pipeline with 30-plus stages, including Red Team finders, Blue Team defence, verification cascade, legal pass, and copyedit, producing one consolidated report on disk. Verifies installation and API key, chooses the output location and smoke, standard, or custom mode, launches the run, and reports the result path. Use when the user asks to run presubmit, wants a deep unattended pre-submission audit, or needs a math or replication-code audit. Everyday self-audits go to paper-review-lite, and external refereeing to journal-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。
Conduct a peer review of research methodology, experimental design, and manuscript quality. Covers methodology evaluation, statistical appropriateness, reproducibility assessment, bias identification, and constructive feedback. Use when reviewing a manuscript, preprint, or internal research report, evaluating a research proposal or study protocol, assessing evidence quality behind a claim, or reviewing a thesis chapter or dissertation section.
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。
Consult this skill BEFORE proposing a fix to any CLI gap or schema gap that touches evidence, trust magnitude, evidence types, evidence grades, the TM formula, or star-level promotion gates. Also read it whenever an issue mentions citations, stars, commits, contributors, views, reviewers, percentile, arxiv, github-stars-own, repo-own, social-signal, benchmark-result, peer-review, self-attestation, fusion-recipe, verifier-attestation, or proxy-containment — those are the 10 canonical evidence types and the raw inputs that feed their formulas. Also read it when asked whether a skill qualifies for a given star level (0★–6★): the Star Bar and promotion gates live in `META.md`, not in the TM methodology page. Reading both prevents proposing a calibration that satisfies the TM grade threshold but violates a Star Bar installability or link requirement.
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。
Skippable Phase 0 of the Gaia evidence verification pipeline. Use only on declared need for higher-quality Stage-2 evidence: a promotion candidate, or a skill that gaia-meta-sweep flagged as under-evidenced. Given a skill id, source repo/context, and needed evidence types (benchmark-result, arxiv, peer-review, social-signal), it runs Firecrawl searches, scrapes top hits to markdown, and appends discovered sources into Phase 1 inputs. Missing benchmark evidence is recorded as benchmark-source candidates first, not direct scoring rows. Trigger phrases: "discover evidence", "find new evidence", "Phase 0", "run ev-discovery", "search for benchmarks/papers", "under-evidenced", "promotion candidate needs stronger proof". This is the ONLY ev-* skill that searches the web for NEW evidence; other ev-* skills aggregate or verify known sources. Requires Firecrawl to be usable (`firecrawl --status` authenticated OR FIRECRAWL_API_KEY set); skips gracefully when neither holds.
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。
Audit academic peer review operations -- reviewer matching algorithms, conflict of interest detection, turnaround time optimization, review quality scoring, and editorial workflow management..
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。
Analyze, design, write, revise, translate, and review empirical or technical research papers through an evidence-bounded dialectical workflow. Use when Codex must develop a research question, integrate reference papers with a user's ideas, build phenomenon-mechanism-conditions reasoning, design methods or experiments, restructure or edit a manuscript, translate Chinese academic text into restrained English, answer reviewers, or run multi-round peer-review convergence without fabricating evidence.
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。
SOP for locating, auditing, and importing production-tested reference patterns and peer-reviewed literature. Trigger when: - Designing or implementing non-trivial algorithms, system protocols, design patterns, or major library integrations. - Prompt contains: prior art, reference implementation, research patterns, standard implementation, arXiv, RFC.
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。
Use OpenAI Codex CLI as a peer collaboration partner — same standing as Claude, not a one-shot tool. Bring Codex in EARLY (ideation, framing decisions, stuck moments), not only for late peer-review. Hand it strategic context (target, research, draft, reasoning), iterate conversationally over ~3-8 turns, converge before surfacing to the human. Invoke when the user says "check / iterate / ideate with Codex" or "ask Codex" — and proactively when stuck between two reasonable framings, pressure-testing a load-bearing claim or structure, or about to ask the human to pick between options two agents could resolve.
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。
Expert knowledge of academic writing standards for peer-reviewed papers, including citation integrity, style compliance, clarity, and scientific writing best practices. Use when reviewing or editing academic manuscripts, papers, or research documentation.
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。