「viewer」の検索結果

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

Review code for quality, simplicity, and maintainability. Identifies unnecessary abstractions, duplicated logic, oversized functions, missing error handling, and naming issues — then fixes them automatically before presenting the result.

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。

360 feedback register: reviewer, subject, review cycle, visibility, due date and score, as CSV, SQL, JSON Schema or Notion on request. Use for 360 reviews or peer feedback cycles.

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 the user asks to "script this short video", "write a TikTok / Reels / Shorts script", "给这条抖音或视频号视频写脚本", or "fix the hook — viewers drop off in the first seconds"; produces timestamped beat-sheet scripts on the retention-gate model (0-2s hook / 2-5s confirmation / 5-15s payoff / loop-or-CTA) with per-scene script lines, on-screen text for muted viewing, asset keywords, and 9:16 format-param rows per platform norm card for TikTok, Reels, Shorts, 抖音, and 视频号 — plus 2-3 hook options from named hook families and an AI-content disclosure line by default on realistic synthetic media. Spec-only: rendering, TTS, and publishing stay with the user's own tools — no pipelines, no upload automation. Not for creator video briefs — use brief-generator; long-form video SEO belongs to content-writer. 短视频脚本/抖音分镜/开头钩子/竖屏9:16

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 reviewable decision trail for long-running or unattended work: a TSV log with one row per decision (what, why, evidence, result). Local by default; commit it when a reviewer needs the trail to trust the result. Use for /show-me-your-work, autonomous or multi-phase runs, or work a human reviews after stepping away.

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。

Apply to any non-trivial work, not just bulk work: edits, migrations, analyses, checks. Build the tool that does it or proves it (codemod, script, generator, or a skill your subagents follow) instead of working by hand. The tool is the artifact a reviewer can rerun.

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。

Apply to multi-step work (sweeps, migrations, runs of similar edits) and to how you stack commits and PRs. Break work into small units that each end in a verifiable state, check each before the next, and order delivery so the sequence proves itself to a reviewer.

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 for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.

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。

技術記事の品質を「伝説の編集者」の視点で厳格にレビューするためのスキル。記事のドラフトが完成した際、既存記事のブラッシュアップ、または「この記事どうかな？」という漠然とした相談に対しても、このスキルを積極的に使用してください。5つの品質の柱（論理性、実用性、読みやすさ、独自性、明確性）に基づいた厳格な採点と、AI臭さを徹底的に排除した「魂の宿る記事」への改善案を提供します。

Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code

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 working with Bitbucket Pr Reviews — bitbucket pull request review management including default reviewers, merge checks, branch permissions, and build status integration. Use when configuring or automating Bitbucket PR review workflows across repositories and workspaces.

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 subprocesses for Dev/Tester/Reviewer/Architect tasks.

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。

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory, coverage-bounded integrity checks, two-stage peer review, and auditable quality-assurance artifacts. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow, 연구부터 논문까지, 연구 주제 설정부터 논문 완성까지, 논문 전체 워크플로.

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。

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints.

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。