「critique」の検索結果

Invoke a Rubber Duck Reviewer subagent to independently critique plans and implementations before proceeding. Use when the agent is about to implement a non-trivial plan (multi-file changes, architectural decisions, security-sensitive logic, database schema changes), after completing a self-contained unit of work (module, endpoint, feature), when stuck or facing repeated failures (same test fails 2+ times, unexpected results), or when the agent wants independent validation of assumptions and design decisions. Triggers on any non-trivial implementation task where independent critique would catch blind spots before they become costly mistakes.

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 structured design critiques with frameworks for feedback that is honest, specific, and actionable.

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。

Processes eDNA metabarcoding from raw paired-end reads to species tables, navigating ASV (DADA2, UNOISE3) vs OTU (swarm v2) decision (Callahan 2017 vs Schloss multi-copy-16S critique), marker/primer choice (Leray COI, MiFish 12S, 515F/806R 16S, ITS2) with primer-specific bias, OBITools3 v3 command-name break (obi stats plural; .tar.gz taxonomy), tag-jumping with dual-indexing (Schnell 2015; NovaSeq 10x MiSeq), decontam as screening-not-classifier (Davis 2018), read-counts-not-abundance critique (Lamb 2019), site-occupancy modeling (Ficetola 2015), Naive-Bayes calibration limits (Bokulich 2018), and eDNA decay (Strickler 2015). Use when going from raw eDNA FASTQ to species tables, picking marker + denoising pipeline, deciding whether read counts represent abundance, applying occupancy modeling, configuring OBITools3 v3, or interpreting decontam output. Not for clinical 16S microbiome (see microbiome/amplicon-processing).

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。

Harvests a DESIGN.md from an existing codebase, critiques it against the actual code, and applies safe quick-win fixes. Three modes harvest / critique / fix. Shells out to `npx @google/design.md lint` for structural validation; never reimplements Google's linter. The on-ramp that makes DESIGN.md adoptable for every existing repo, not just greenfield projects.

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。

Frontend UI design, critique, audit, polish. Use when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI 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。

Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, automated anti-pattern detection, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.

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。

Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.

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。

Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.

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。

Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.

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。

Marp形式プレゼンテーションの専門レビュー・評価・改善スキル。 10軸スコアリング（100点満点）で品質を定量評価し、具体的な改善コード付きで提案する。 Use when the user asks to: - Review, evaluate, or critique a Marp presentation / プレゼンをレビュー / 評価 / 添削 - Improve, polish, or upgrade existing slides / スライドを改善 / ブラッシュアップ - Check slide quality, score slides, or audit a deck / スライドの品質チェック / 採点 - "このプレゼンどう？" "スライドを見てほしい" "プレゼン資料のフィードバック" Reads .md files with Marp frontmatter, scores across 10 dimensions, and outputs a detailed review report with concrete before/after code improvements. Works as a companion to the marp-slides skill (generation → review → improvement cycle).

Precise language for design feedback. Ban vague words. Name what you actually see. Use when giving design feedback, running critiques, or training teams to communicate about 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。

Run taste-informed design reviews using Observation > Principle > Question. Use when facilitating design critiques, improving feedback quality on a team, or building a shared vocabulary for 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。

Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.

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。

Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team.

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。

Processes eDNA metabarcoding from raw paired-end reads to species tables, navigating ASV (DADA2, UNOISE3) vs OTU (swarm v2) decision (Callahan 2017 vs Schloss multi-copy-16S critique), marker/primer choice (Leray COI, MiFish 12S, 515F/806R 16S, ITS2) with primer-specific bias, OBITools3 v3 command-name break (obi stats plural; .tar.gz taxonomy), tag-jumping with dual-indexing (Schnell 2015; NovaSeq 10x MiSeq), decontam as screening-not-classifier (Davis 2018), read-counts-not-abundance critique (Lamb 2019), site-occupancy modeling (Ficetola 2015), Naive-Bayes calibration limits (Bokulich 2018), and eDNA decay (Strickler 2015). Use when going from raw eDNA FASTQ to species tables, picking marker + denoising pipeline, deciding whether read counts represent abundance, applying occupancy modeling, configuring OBITools3 v3, or interpreting decontam output. Not for clinical 16S microbiome (see microbiome/amplicon-processing).

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。

Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.

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。

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

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。

Processes eDNA metabarcoding from raw paired-end reads to species tables, navigating ASV (DADA2, UNOISE3) vs OTU (swarm v2) decision (Callahan 2017 vs Schloss multi-copy-16S critique), marker/primer choice (Leray COI, MiFish 12S, 515F/806R 16S, ITS2) with primer-specific bias, OBITools3 v3 command-name break (obi stats plural; .tar.gz taxonomy), tag-jumping with dual-indexing (Schnell 2015; NovaSeq 10x MiSeq), decontam as screening-not-classifier (Davis 2018), read-counts-not-abundance critique (Lamb 2019), site-occupancy modeling (Ficetola 2015), Naive-Bayes calibration limits (Bokulich 2018), and eDNA decay (Strickler 2015). Use when going from raw eDNA FASTQ to species tables, picking marker + denoising pipeline, deciding whether read counts represent abundance, applying occupancy modeling, configuring OBITools3 v3, or interpreting decontam output. Not for clinical 16S microbiome (see microbiome/amplicon-processing).

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。

Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.

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。

Five-dimension design quality review — score the artifact against craft, brand, accessibility, and copy, then fix what falls short before handing it over.

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。

Iterative design-to-code feedback loop. Critique → adjust → ship cycle for tightening visual fidelity between brief and built UI.

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。

Follow-up design polish skill inspired by Impeccable. Use after a web or HTML artifact exists to audit, critique, polish, animate, harden, and prepare the page for a live/share 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 this skill when the user requests to review, analyze, critique, or summarize academic papers, research articles, preprints, or scientific publications. Supports comprehensive structured reviews covering methodology assessment, contribution evaluation, literature positioning, and constructive feedback generation. Trigger on queries involving paper URLs, uploaded PDFs, arXiv links, or requests like "review this paper", "analyze this research", "summarize this study", or "write a peer 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 the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI 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。