789 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when evaluating, designing, drafting, revising, stress-testing, or preparing academic articles, empirical research reports, literature reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, journal submissions, reviewer responses, research methods, sampling, measurement, analysis, publication readiness, or citation/source audits.
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。
A six-year-old code reviewer who asks "why?" about everything. Catches over-engineering, confusing names, and unnecessary complexity. Output is a 1-2 line summary of the request as a whole: how is the file? Is the class nice? Is the function correct?
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。
A six-year-old code reviewer who asks "why?" about everything. Catches over-engineering, confusing names, and unnecessary complexity, then corrects the code according to the language spec, but through kids eyes, maintaining simplicity and readability.
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。
A six-year-old code reviewer who asks "why?" about everything. Catches over-engineering, confusing names, and unnecessary complexity. To invoke, say `6yo`.
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。
価値提案（誰に/何のために/なぜ勝てる）をレビューし、曖昧さ・矛盾・証拠不足を洗い出して、メッセージとMVPを磨くために使う。
Work the review of a research run with rs_review — read the manuscript and record the panel's concerns with the evidence that grounds each one, keep the author's reply and the re-review's finding in their separate columns, run the devil's advocate with the concession threshold the tool enforces, and write the panel report and traceability matrix a response-to-reviewers letter is built from. Use when a document is ready for review, when a concern has to be answered or re-reviewed, or when an attack or a concession is being recorded.
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。
Compress review pressure into the right next action instead of more code by default. Classify findings, reject non-liabilities, and choose proof-only vs minimal-fix vs refactor-kernel, preventing one-patch-per-comment churn. Use after a code review — PR comments, reviewer suggestions, or audit findings — and especially when you are about to reflexively patch every comment.
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。
Detects deeply nested loops with duplicated inline logic and recommends extracting into small, named functions. Enforces DRY principles, single-responsibility helpers, and flat iteration patterns. Triggers on nested loop, duplicated logic, extract function, DRY, refactor loop, code review, deeply nested, inline logic, readability.
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。
Role-based multi-model strategy. The model catalog lives in a local configuration file instead of the skill text -- roles (thinker/decision-maker, long-running worker, draft generator, reviewer/acceptance, escalation), reasoning effort as an independent axis, mandatory review for draft models, provider switching for independent reviews, budgets, delegation flow, and cost/quality of small workers.
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。
Rollenbasierte Multi-Modell-Strategie. Modellkatalog liegt in einer lokalen Konfigurationsdatei statt im Skill-Text -- Rollen (Denker/Entscheider, Dauer-Worker, Entwurfsgenerator, Reviewer/Abnahme, Eskalation), Reasoning-Effort als eigene Achse, Abnahmepflicht für Entwurfsmodelle, Anbieterwechsel für unabhängige Reviews, Kontingente, Delegationsablauf und Kosten/Qualität kleiner Worker.
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。
Turns sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-review instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Builds an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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 one SKILL.md against the format rules and returns a findings table: strict YAML front matter with exactly name and description, name equal to the folder, description as the trigger, the eight-heading skeleton, capability-neutral wording, safety boundaries. Each finding carries severity, rule identifier, location, quoted evidence and replacement text; the verdict READY, REVISE or BLOCKED is an apparent state and the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "review this SKILL.md", "check my skill file before upload", "lint this skill description", "validate the front matter of this skill" or "score this skill folder". Do not use to write an agent's instructions field, use agent-instructions-drafter instead; for injection or leakage exposures use agent-instructions-red-team; for launch tests use agent-evaluation-plan. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Drafts the instructions field of a declarative agent that orchestrates a set of custom skills, under a character cap (default 8,000), from the skills' names and descriptions: role and scope, one routing rule per skill, workflow order, gates written as workflow holds, global rules, output format and what the agent never does. Returns the text in a fenced block with its character count labelled counted or estimated, plus a skill inventory, routing table, gate table, rules trace and open questions for the owner. Use when the user asks to "write the instructions for my agent", "draft a system prompt that ties these skills together", "tighten these agent instructions to fit the cap", "how should the agent route between these skills" or "revise my agent's orchestration text". Do not use to review a single SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Abstracts one contract into a key-terms table with clause references, compares each term against the user's playbook of standard positions, and returns a DRAFT contract review pack: deviations and issues, open questions and a reviewer checklist. Flags governing law and never gives legal advice or enforceability or acceptability calls. Use when the user asks to "review this contract", "abstract the key terms", "summarise this MSA", "pressure-test this SOW against our playbook" or to compare an agreement with their standard positions. Do not use for a first pass on a stand-alone NDA, use nda-triage instead, or for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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 the instructions text and skills of a declarative agent, with its stated capabilities, knowledge sources and audience, for prompt-injection exposure, data-leakage paths, over-broad permissions and missing refusals, and returns an attack-surface map, a findings table with severity, quoted evidence and attack path, one pasteable fix per finding, a probe pack the owner can run and a refusal-coverage table. Use when the user asks to "red-team this agent", "check these instructions for prompt injection", "could this agent leak data", "review the permissions on my agent" or "what should this agent refuse". Do not use for checking a SKILL.md against the format rules, use skill-file-reviewer instead; do not use for designing the launch test set, use agent-evaluation-plan instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Proposes redactions of personal identifiers in pasted text or an attached document (names, contact details, identification and account numbers, dates that identify, quasi-identifiers) and returns a DRAFT redacted copy with consistent placeholder tokens plus a redaction table stating what was replaced, where and why, with a confidence level and a blank reviewer decision per row. Use when the user asks to "redact the names in this document", "de-identify this transcript before we share it", "strip personal data from these notes", "anonymise this report for publication" or "what would need redacting here". Do not use for assessing a planned processing activity, use dpia-draft-pack instead; do not use for working out what data an incident exposed, use data-incident-impact-brief instead. Never declares a document anonymised, safe to release or compliant. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Prepares a DRAFT management-of-change intake record from a change description (email, meeting note, marked-up drawing or request form): what changes from what to what and where, the identifiers named, the candidate affected documents matched against the register, the disciplines to consult with the reason for each, and the numbered questions reviewers must answer, with UNKNOWN wherever the description is silent. Prepares the record only: never approves, classifies the change, decides replacement in kind or makes any hazard or safety judgement. Use when the user asks to "raise an MoC for this", "prepare the change request intake", "which documents does this change touch", "who needs to review this change" or "draft the MoC form from this email". Do not use for tracking who owes information to whom across disciplines, use interface-register-builder instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Reads a cash forecast (spreadsheet, model export, pasted table or the narrative that accompanies it) and returns a DRAFT assumptions sheet: every assumption the forecast rests on, stated or implied by the figures, with its value as read, its location in the model, the cash lines it drives, its stated source or "not stated", the evidence that would test it, an owner, and one neutral challenge question, so a reviewer can work through the assumptions one by one. Use when the user asks to "list the assumptions behind this cash forecast", "what is this cash flow forecast assuming", "prepare the challenge questions for the treasury review", "pull out the drivers of the 13-week cash forecast" or "build an assumptions register for the liquidity plan". Do not use for actuals against budget by line, use budget-variance-explainer instead; do not use for the case behind a capital request, use capex-request-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
Assembles a DRAFT capital expenditure request pack from the requester's inputs: business need, options including do nothing, costs exactly as provided, benefits as stated, risks, assumptions, budget status and the approvals route read from the organisation's own delegation of authority, with UNKNOWN for every missing figure, date or name. Use when the user asks to "prepare a capex request", "draft the business case for this equipment", "fill in the capital request form", "structure this investment proposal" or "what approvals does this spend need". Do not use for a board or committee decision paper, use board-paper-skeleton instead; for an IT change approval, use change-request-pack; to pressure-test a finished business case, use cfo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
レビュー依頼を受けた親が、対象と観点を確定し、観点ごとに独立した評価者へ並列に配分して結果を統合する。指定された観点だけを評価する子はcode-review-guidanceを使う。
Get a second opinion from an external LLM at three checkpoints: T1 is the plan valid, T2 which path at a fork, T3 finish plus a QA breaker that tries to break the result. One structured move per exchange (PROPOSE, COUNTER, VERIFY, ACCEPT, BLOCK) with memory across turns, and every exchange mirrored into a human-visible channel. Supports a multi-vendor panel instead of a single reviewer. Triggers: "/secondop", "get a second opinion", "run the review panel".
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 Gemini as a third external reviewer alongside two other vendors: diff review with an APPROVE or REQUEST_CHANGES verdict, and QA-breaker duty in the post-build test ritual. Headless over REST with a CLI fallback, and verdicts go to a shared usage journal. Triggers: "/gemini review", "gemini opinion on this diff".
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。