1,288 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Improve academic paper writing quality for ML/CV/NLP-style papers with clear section structure, paragraph flow, and reviewer-facing presentation. Use when drafting or revising Abstract, Introduction, Related Work, Method, Experiments, or Conclusion; polishing figures/tables; checking claim-support alignment; or performing self-review before submission.
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 reasoning about the rig lifecycle operations family (create / start / stop / resume / restore / snapshot / release / unclaim / destroy), reading or trusting `rig ps` / lifecycle projections after recovery, or designing proof for a lifecycle scenario. Covers the 4 failure modes (auto-restore creates partial rig; projections report healthier than reality; provider auth treated as impl work; resume succeeds for one runtime fails another) plus the restore-honesty rule (failed resume is FAILED loudly — no auto fresh fallback).
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。
Research and draft a competitive battle card from public evidence — every claim labeled and sourced. Use when a rep needs a field-action card, not a research report.
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。
Evidence-first pull request judge that reviews a PR and posts one consolidated GitHub review with inline comments via the gh CLI. Runs the repo's own deterministic checks first, researches current official docs before any claim about external libraries or APIs, then reviews correctness, security, structural quality (code judo, spaghetti growth, file-size limits), and AI slop including useless code comments. Every finding must carry evidence, every comment passes a deterministic noise gate before posting, and the verdict (APPROVE, COMMENT, REQUEST_CHANGES) is weighed by findings. Use when asked to review a PR, judge this PR, review this branch or diff before merge, run the-judge, "revise esse PR", "faca o code review", or "julgue esse PR". Do NOT use for reviewing prose or documents, fixing CI failures, resolving merge conflicts, writing the fix itself, or responding to review comments (use gh-address-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 a question, decision, plan, tradeoff, or claim needs a rigorous verdict and one perspective is not enough. Spawns a panel of 3 to 5 subagent jurors that form independent blind opinions, deliberate anonymously under an anti-anchoring and anti-sycophancy protocol, and return one committed verdict with confidence, preserved dissent, and a concrete next action. Domain-agnostic across engineering, architecture, data, product, hiring, strategy, vendor choice, build-vs-buy, and research design. Trigger phrases include "convene a jury", "have agents debate and decide", "get a panel to decide", "multi-agent decision", "stress-test this and decide", "monte um juri", "tribunal de agentes", "painel para decidir". Do NOT use to only critique without deciding (use the-fool for that), to build a plan or write the solution itself, or for simple factual lookups.
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 fraimz, make fraimz, prove it works, frame proof, PR proof, validate experience, e2e evidence, fraimz.html. The full fraimz loop — frame the claim, drive the real app via CDP, validate/repair, output fraimz.html. Use whenever a task ends with "please create a fraimz" or any change needs end-to-end proof.
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 Linear issue aligned with implementation evidence, acceptance criteria, code review, and deployment state while avoiding premature completion claims.
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。
Show the user real screenshots of the work as it progresses, without being asked. Capture the start, the key moment and the result of every visual change, send them as files with captions as soon as each is ready, and look at every image before sending it. Use on any task with a visible result (UI, pages, games, 3D, charts, motion), when the user says "show me", "screenshots", "keep giving me screenshots" or "where are the screenshots?", and before any report that claims a visual change works.
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 a website or digital experience against its supplied source references for originality and plagiarism risk. Use when Codex must compare current or historical site output with reference pages, capture packs, screenshots, copy, brands, numbers, images, assets, videos, layouts, motion, or code; raise evidence-backed red flags; distinguish common visual grammar from distinctive copying; and propose concrete fixes without making unsupported legal claims.
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 work, verify claims with concrete evidence, and explain the result in simple grade-5 language. Use when the user asks to review, audit, check, verify, explain a change, explain a fix, summarize test results, validate whether something works, or translate technical findings into plain language for non-technical readers.
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 a visual or interaction technique you already built into a reusable web-design skill, by isolating the one mechanism that makes it work while reproducing its approved reference exactly around that focus, and packaging it with a demo that proves both the mechanism and the visual fidelity. Covers finding the mechanism, naming the technique plainly, disclosing the verified runtime and renderer, auditing reference layers, carrying real numbers instead of adjectives, preserving owned staging, keeping expensive gotchas, declaring the boundary against neighbouring skills, and browser-verifying before claiming it works. Use when a page, canvas scene, shader, scroll effect, layout system, or hover interaction turned out well and should become a skill rather than staying in one project.
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。
Build, fix and review character combat animations (melee strikes, bow shots, spell casts, skills, monster attacks, whole move sets) so they read like Diablo IV, Baldur's Gate 3 or Elden Ring and never stretch, lock, wring or break an arm, wrist or hand. A written standard with numbered rules, per-frame tests on the real skinned mesh, keys designed from upper-arm, forearm and blade intents, checks from every camera the player sees, two blind critics plus a blind A/B against the last release, and every critic claim verified against full-resolution frames and live-rig numbers. Use when creating or reworking any attack, skill or move set; when the user says arms, hands, wrists, elbows or weapons look stretched, weird, broken or wrong; when they ask for a standard, rules or tests for animations; or when they ask to score animations or get them to N out of 10.
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 a completed daily UI inspiration capture into exactly five original landing-page builds, one per separate Codex task, using Sites. Use when the user asks to turn the daily inspiration references, a five-item UI prompt pack, or a dated `*-ui-inspiration-capture` article into distinct HTML landing pages while changing the source brands, names, copy, people, numbers, pricing, claims, and imagery.
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。
Plugin router for 20 third-party DeFi protocols (Polymarket, Aave, Hyperliquid, PancakeSwap, Morpho, Raydium, Curve, Compound, Pendle, Lido, ether.fi, GMX, Kamino, Orca, Meteora, Clanker, pump.fun, Uniswap) and their protocol-native tokens (HYPE, HLP, eETH, weETH, stETH, wstETH, LDO, GHO, CAKE, CRV, COMP, RAY, ETHFI, GLP, kToken, PT-* / YT-*, $CLANKER). Resolves DApp/token → plugin → confirm-install → re-apply request. Routing only — never signs or broadcasts; every on-chain write needs explicit user approval. Fires on: (1) named DApp + action verb (swap/deposit/stake/long/borrow/buy/sell/snipe/farm/claim, EN or ZH 买/卖/换/存/质押/借/做多/做空/狙击); (2) 2+ DApp comparison ("Aave vs Compound", "Lido vs ether.fi"); (3) Polymarket UpDown (`<COIN> 5min updown`, `5 分钟涨跌`, `预测市场`); (4) protocol-native token + action verb ("deposit USDC into HLP", "PT-stETH on Pendle"); (5) pump.fun WRITE verbs (buy/sell/snipe/ape/swap or 买/卖/狙击/梭哈/帮我买). See body for full rules.
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。
Fulfill a git escrow bounty by writing a solution or submitting an existing one. Use when the user wants to solve a test suite challenge, write code to pass tests, and claim a token reward. Requires the git-escrows CLI (npm i -g git-escrows).
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 Apache Pinot performance when hot paths change or a PR makes benchmark or efficiency claims.
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。
Trustpilot company profile lookup on trustpilot.com — input a company domain (e.g. apple.com, shopify.com, shopwagandtail.com) and extract company metadata: official display name, businessUnitId, TrustScore (1-5), star rating, total review count, last-12-months review count, primary category and all categories, verification flags (verifiedByGoogle, verifiedPaymentMethod, verifiedUserIdentity), claimed/closed status, website URL, contact info (email, phone, country, city, address, zip), profile image, and optional reply behavior metrics (averageDaysToReply, replyPercentage, negativeReviewsWithRepliesCount, companyUsesAIResponses). Detects company-not-found and returns isCompanyFound=false with the searched domain. Use when user mentions Trustpilot company info, Trustpilot TrustScore, look up Trustpilot rating, check Trustpilot stars, Trustpilot business profile, Trustpilot review count, Trustpilot company lookup, Trustpilot verification status, Trustpilot reply percentage, Trustpilot AI responses, business unit ID Trustpilot, get company rating from Trustpilot, scrape Trustpilot company, batch enrich domains with Trustpilot, bulk company info Trustpilot, fast domain enrichment with TrustScore, Trustpilot company metadata, Trustpilot brand monitoring, competitor TrustScore comparison, trustpilot.com domain enrichment, trustpilot company profile, trustpilot domain check, trustpilot business listing, check if company is on Trustpilot, Trustpilot category lookup, company contact info from Trustpilot. Also applies to lead-list enrichment with reputation scores, supplier vetting, agency or KOL vetting via review reputation, aggregator sites that need TrustScores for many domains, due-diligence workflows, and pre-outreach reputation checks.
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。
Draft, restructure, or plan Nature-style manuscript sections from author-provided claims, results, figures, notes, or Chinese drafts. Use when the user wants to write or rebuild an abstract, introduction, results narrative, discussion, conclusion, title, or full manuscript argument rather than only polish finished prose.
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 and validate claims using counter-hypothesis testing. Use when verifying technical content, checking references, validating API endpoints, or performing quality assurance on deliverables.
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。
Find, verify, and synthesize scientific literature — from "what's the seminal paper for X" through full multi-source reviews. Covers grounding claims in real retrieved sources, avoiding fabricated citations, handling retractions, and calibrating confidence to evidence strength.
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。
Compose one publication-grade multi-panel figure. Start from a one-line claim plus immutable data Artifact Version references, or inspect an existing figure and draft its outline directly. Plan a 12-column panel outline, delegate one worker per panel, compose and inspect the result, then run at most three adversarial review rounds while regenerating only affected panels. For a standalone plot use `figure-style`; for whole-paper figure ordering use `paper-narrative`.
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。
Verify OpenMausBot server and conversation changes against an isolated fake-engine instance before claiming they 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。
Causal inference design audit for the sewage-house-prices project. Runs a 4-phase review (claim identification, design validity, inference, polish) covering hedonic pricing, repeat sales, long difference, DiD/event studies, upstream/downstream, and dry spill strategies. This skill should be used when asked to "check the econometrics", "audit the identification", "review the strategy", or when verifying that code matches the stated design.
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 a fast 2-agent pre-submission check for an economics paper — focuses on contribution, identification, and causal overclaiming. Completes in ~1 minute.
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。