「reviews」の検索結果

Writes or reviews a pre-analysis plan before data collection — registry choice (OSF, AEA RCT Registry, AsPredicted, registered reports), PAP structure, models and decision rules locked in advance, analysis code run on simulated data, contingencies for attrition, failed manipulations, and exclusions, deviation records, and timeline. Operationalizes the pre-data-collection side of DA-RT. Use when the user asks to draft or audit a pre-registration or PAP, choose a registry, decide what to lock versus leave exploratory, or handle a later deviation. Hypotheses and estimands come from hypothesis-building, post-hoc reporting from methods-reporting.

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 or audits a literature review, producing an evidence map, the closest prior work, source clusters, a gap verdict, and a synthesis plan for the introduction. Use when the user asks whether a contribution is novel, who has studied a question, what the literature establishes, or how to organize a review, or wants a reading list, Zotero export, or pile of papers turned into one. For systematic reviews or meta-analyses it produces the protocol scaffold and routes registration (PROSPERO or OSF) and screening to dedicated tools.

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。

Writes or reviews a pre-analysis plan before data collection: registry choice (OSF, AEA, AsPredicted, registered reports), locked models and decision rules, code run on simulated data, contingencies, and deviation records. Use when drafting or auditing a pre-registration or PAP, choosing a registry, or handling a deviation.

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 a whole deliverable against its manifest without rewriting it — deterministic gate, per-section finders, a whole-work pass, and adjudicated findings.json and report.md with honest coverage. Use before shipping a deliverable or for the night shift.

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 an existing conjoint study for threats to inference and returns severity-ranked findings on design integrity, estimation, measurement error, external validity, and interpretation, including the guardrail against reading an AMCE as majority preference. Use when the user asks whether a conjoint design or analysis holds up, has referee comments on a conjoint, or wants a second opinion on estimation or interpretation. New designs go to conjoint-design, reshaping to conjoint-cleaning.

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 an existing conjoint study for threats to inference and returns severity-ranked findings on design, estimation, measurement error, external validity, and interpretation. Use when checking whether a conjoint design or analysis holds up, or answering referee comments on one.

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 or audits a literature review: evidence map, closest prior work, gap verdict, and synthesis plan. Use to check whether a contribution is novel, map what a literature establishes, or organize a review; systematic reviews get a protocol scaffold.

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。

Extracts a company's tone of voice from its own content and turns it into rules a writer or an AI can follow. Phase 1 analyses 15 to 20 pages for sentence, paragraph, word and structure patterns with frequency counts; after the user reviews it, Phase 2 writes the guidelines: tone attributes with before and after examples, a We are / We are not table, tone by context, vocabulary to use and avoid, and open questions. Triggers: "tone of voice", "brand voice", "voice guidelines", "writing style guide", "extract voice from our website", "TOV". Not for visual identity (use /brand-kit) or messaging (use /messaging).

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。

Researches one B2B SaaS competitor across 13 dimensions (company, product, ICP, pricing, reviews, content, launches, search and AI visibility, tech stack, hiring, go-to-market, social, paid ads) and writes a sourced dossier with an executive summary, a threat level, strengths and weaknesses, and a data gaps section. Run it once per competitor, then compare. Triggers: "competitor analysis", "competitor research on", "what is [competitor] doing", "compare us to", "competitive landscape", "battlecard prep". Run after /company-context and /icp-research. Not for researching your own company (use /company-context).

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 ideal customer profile from evidence: case studies, testimonials, customer logos, solutions pages, reviews and any sales notes you have. Produces market sizing layers, firmographic segments, a champion and an economic buyer persona, a negative ICP, intent signals, customer proof points and a voice-of-customer section in the buyers' own words, every claim sourced. Triggers: "ICP research", "ideal customer profile", "who are our customers", "customer segments", "buyer personas", "who should we target". Run after /company-context. Not for competitor analysis (use /competitor-research) or call transcript patterns (use /win-loss).

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 cross-review protocol between specialized agents. Ensures scope alignment, priority calibration, and domain-aware feedback. Use when one agent reviews another's work, during handoffs, or when validating cross-cutting concerns.

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。

Assesses agent capabilities by analyzing agent files and determining what tasks they can handle. Use when you need to evaluate if an existing agent can handle a task or if a new agent is needed. Reviews agent descriptions, skills, and workflows to determine capability match.

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-provider deliberation panel for COMPLEX, multi-view questions — architecture, strategy, market research, and codebase sweeps. Runs a 4-stage deliberation across the provider fleet (diverge → contrarian red-team → adversarial verify → cited synthesis), the same multi-perspective rigour the plan-gate already applies to plan reviews, generalised to arbitrary questions. Use when one model's answer isn't enough and you want convergence THROUGH disagreement + verification, not a single opinion.

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 whenever the user wants to find, shortlist, vet, or enrich US cybersecurity firms — pen-testing/red team, security audits, vCISO, SOC 2 readiness, incident response, managed SOC, IAM, cloud security, and AppSec. Triggers on "find me a pen-testing firm for our SOC 2 audit", "shortlist three vCISO services for our healthcare-tech startup", "we need an incident response retainer", or "pull contact info for these 8 security firm domains", even when described indirectly (we got breached, prepare us for the compliance audit, get us SOC 2 ready). Drives the ServiceGraph API (api.servicegraph.co) — a 100k+ US firm catalog filterable by industry, services, location, size, ratings. Skip in-house security hires, "how do I patch CVE-X" or "configure firewall Y" DIY questions, security-product reviews (CrowdStrike vs SentinelOne, etc.), generic security knowledge questions, consumer/personal security advice, non-US firms, individual freelancers and bug-bounty hunters.

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, debugging, or giving feedback on Go code in this repo (exercises/part2, website/tools, or any *.go file) or when asked for a "code review", "review this Go", "revisa este código Go", or "crítica de código". Reviews for correctness, idiomatic Go, error handling, resource cleanup, concurrency, performance, and security, and always ends with a test-thinking pass (what a test would catch). For exercises/part2, prefer the go-exercise-reviewer skill which knows the module-mode quirk; this skill covers general Go anywhere in the 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。

Use when reviewing, debugging, or improving frontend code in this repo (website/ HTML, CSS, JS, service workers, PWA assets) or when asked to "review frontend", "revisa el html/css", "review JS", or "audita el frontend". Reviews for correctness, browser compatibility, accessibility, performance, security (XSS), responsive behavior, and PWA/service-worker correctness, and ends with a "what a user/reviewer would catch" pass.

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 asked to audit or harden security in this repo — e.g. "security audit", "auditoría de seguridad", "revisa la seguridad", "is this secure", "hardening", "vulnerabilities". Audits code, config, workflows, and secrets exposure. Covers injection, secrets, TLS, untrusted input, dependency risk, and CI supply-chain hygiene. Runs when the user asks about security, not just for code 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 when reviewing, debugging, or hardening Shell/Bash scripts in this repo (.github/workflows/*.yml steps, website build scripts, or any *.sh file) or when asked to "review bash", "revisa el script", "shellcheck", or "revisa el pipeline shell". Reviews for robustness, error handling, quoting, portability, injection, and CI-friendliness, and ends with what a CI failure or a hostile input would catch.

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 and operate a complete, brand-neutral Reddit intelligence system with approved read-only monitoring, grouped keyword rules, evidence-backed AI scoring, a persistent opportunity bank, dashboard review, urgent-alert and weekly-digest previews, content briefs, and human-only response drafts. Use for "reddit intelligence", "reddit monitor", "reddit listener", "watch subreddits", "find reddit opportunities", "content ideas from reddit", "community listening", or setting up this workflow for a client or brand.

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 and maintain a provenance-clean proof library — inventory every real proof asset (analytics, reviews, permitted testimonials, case studies, press, certifications), categorize it, rewrite each cleared item in 3 lengths, fuse top assets with narrative, and gate everything through FTC testimonial rules before it can ship. Use when "proof library", "gather our proof", "authority builder", "collect testimonials", "social proof assets", "proof points for the sales page", "what results can we claim", or any request to assemble evidence for marketing claims. NEVER invents proof — missing proof is reported as a gap.

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 marketing audit of a third-party local business (café, roaster, shop, restaurant, hotel, clinic, home service) from a Google Maps, share.google or website link — located DataForSEO rankings, map packs, search volume and seasonality, listings, reviews, backlinks, AI-assistant answers and a site crawl, plus direct checks (real-browser access, page weight, store shipping quotes, email DNS, mobile screenshots) — delivered as an owner-facing report with priced offers, an exact change list and a 12-week plan, optionally localized and bilingual. Use when "audit this business", "full marketing audit of <business>", "prospect audit", "local business audit", "use DataForSEO for the hard SEO data", "go deeper", "rerun it for local <market>", "also in Spanish", "give me the offers, changes and 3 month plan", or a business link arrives with "audit". For auditing your own product across channels use /kai-audit.

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。

Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for file uploads, imports, previews, archive extraction, format conversion, parser invocation, and deserialization chains. Use when the user asks to inspect an upload or import path, trace archive extraction, preview or converter behavior, explain how a file reaches a parser or deserializer, or connect one uploaded artifact to the decisive backend effect. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.

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 Google Places for text search, place details, resolve, reviews, or scriptable JSON via goplaces.

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。

Full review lifecycle — request reviews, handle feedback with technical rigor, and complete branch integration. Use when completing tasks, receiving feedback, or finishing feature branches.

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。