「viewer」の検索結果

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 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。

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。

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。

Declarative web framework for building browser-based 3D, VR, and AR experiences using HTML and entity-component architecture. Use this skill when creating WebXR applications, VR experiences, AR experiences, 360-degree media viewers, or immersive web content with minimal JavaScript. Triggers on tasks involving A-Frame, WebXR, VR development, AR development, entity-component-system, declarative 3D, or HTML-based 3D scenes. Built on Three.js with accessible HTML-first approach.

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 generating or handling 3D assets through the Scenario MCP server, including text-to-3D or image-to-3D meshes, GPT-6 Astra 3D or Claude Opus 5.5 3D, GLB, FBX, OBJ, STL, or VOX files, PBR-textured or game-ready models, voxel models, multi-view reconstruction, editing a mesh by prompt, retexture, remesh, UV unwrap, auto-rigging a biped or quadruped, or retargeting an animation, previewing a mesh in the 3D viewer, or downloading a model for import into Unity, Unreal, Godot, or Blender.

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。

Design calibrated interview loops, competency-based question banks, and hiring calibration. Use when designing interview processes, creating hiring pipelines, generating scoring rubrics, analyzing interviewer bias, or building question banks.

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。

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。

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。

Contract intelligence and contract operations workflow skill for Claude and Codex. Guides the full contract lifecycle review process from intake and playbook normalization through clause review, deviation scoring, negotiation planning, approval routing, QA, and action recommendations. Reviews legal, business, operational, compliance, privacy, security, technology, and AI-related risks across contracts and legal documents. Supports NDAs, SaaS agreements, DPAs, procurement contracts, commercial agreements, contract comparisons, redlines, approval packages, clause research, and drafting. Warning-Comprehensive reviews can consume significant Claude/OpenAI tokens, especially for large agreements, playbooks, exhibits, schedules, and multi-document 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。

Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.

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。

Lift a clickable card toward the viewer on hover with a deepening shadow — a tactile, responsive cue. Pure CSS, no JS. Only use on actually-clickable cards (motion implies clickability). Honors prefers-reduced-motion (static). Avoid on very dense grids where many lifts feel noisy.

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。