149 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when you need to understand how American Anthropologist (AA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, the four-field editorial board, decision categories, and how section choice shapes the path. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.
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 you need to understand or set expectations for the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) editorial and peer-review process — desk review, the developmental multi-round R&R culture, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process and how to read decisions; it does not draft the response letter (amj-rebuttal).
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 peer review analysis and feedback generation
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 help with academic papers or citations but it's unclear which specific workflow fits — reviewing a paper, checking a BibTeX file for fake references, or benchmarking multiple LLMs on reference-recommendation accuracy. Also use when the user mentions paper review, peer review, BibTeX verification, citation checking, reference hallucination, or academic literature accuracy and hasn't specified which of those three tasks they mean. This skill is the entry router for the academic-eval suite: it asks one diagnostic question then routes to the right sub-skill.
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。
Step 5 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Iteratively refine drafts/paper.tex by simulating peer review and applying targeted revisions, with strict accept/revert halt rules, deterministic 0-100 decision bands (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject) that drive a target-met early stop, and a Devil's Advocate concession-threshold guard that blocks acceptance on unresolved critical findings. Maintains a worklog and snapshots each iteration so revert is real, not symbolic. TRIGGER when the orchestrator delegates Step 5 or when the user asks to "refine the draft", "iterate on the paper", or "run peer review on this paper".
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。
Architecture quality critique dimensions for peer review. Load when invoking solution-architect-reviewer or performing self-review of architecture documents.
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。
Reviewer critique dimensions for peer review - implementation bias detection, test quality validation, completeness checks, and priority validation
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。
This skill should be used when the user says "/council", "council", "deliberate", "multi-perspective decision", "트레이드오프 분석", "위원회 소집", "여러 관점으로 검토", or wants deep multi-perspective deliberation with tradeoff mapping. Combines tribunal (structured adversarial review), agent-council (external LLM opinions), dev-scan (community sentiment), and step-back (meta-level review) into a unified decision-making committee. Uses Agent Teams for real peer-to-peer debate with iterative step-back moderation loop.
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。
Organizes an author’s response to peer review. Extracts every referee and editor point, tags severity and type, orders the revision by dependency, flags defensible pushbacks as questions, and builds a numbered comment → response → location letter whose substantive answers the author writes. Use when the user has referee reports, a revise-and-resubmit decision, or an editor’s letter and wants to plan the revision, draft the response letter, or check that every point was addressed. The reviewer-side twin is journal-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。
Launches and configures the standalone presubmit CLI, an API-driven adversarial peer-review pipeline with 30-plus stages, including Red Team finders, Blue Team defence, verification cascade, legal pass, and copyedit, producing one consolidated report on disk. Verifies installation and API key, chooses the output location and smoke, standard, or custom mode, launches the run, and reports the result path. Use when the user asks to run presubmit, wants a deep unattended pre-submission audit, or needs a math or replication-code audit. Everyday self-audits go to paper-review-lite, and external refereeing to journal-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。
Step 5 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Iteratively refine drafts/paper.tex by simulating peer review and applying targeted revisions, with strict accept/revert halt rules. Maintains a worklog and snapshots each iteration so revert is real, not symbolic. TRIGGER when the orchestrator delegates Step 5 or when the user asks to "refine the draft", "iterate on the paper", or "run peer review on this paper".
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。
Coordinate safely with a peer interactive session sharing the same git worktree — check first whether a separate worktree removes the problem, then declare path and branch scope before the first edit, survive a contended index lock, and review the whole branch before opening a PR. Activate when starting work in a repository that may already be occupied, when a git command fails with `index.lock: File exists`, when `guard:snapshot` refuses because a snapshot already exists, or when a commit turns out to contain a file this session never edited. When one session leads and the other supports, divide the labour by shape and re-derive every reported number against a named revision before citing it. Distinct from subagent concurrency: a peer session cannot be bracketed, because no baseline exists from before its edits.
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。
Analyze, design, write, revise, translate, and review empirical or technical research papers through an evidence-bounded dialectical workflow. Use when Codex must develop a research question, integrate reference papers with a user's ideas, build phenomenon-mechanism-conditions reasoning, design methods or experiments, restructure or edit a manuscript, translate Chinese academic text into restrained English, answer reviewers, or run multi-round peer-review convergence without fabricating evidence.
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。
When asynchronously reviewing peer code before merging into the main branch.
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。
Guide authors through a structured self-review before requesting 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。
Guide reviewers through systematic, constructive peer review of a pull request.
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。
Coding-agent sessions on every machine you connected, over Herdr where it runs, tmux elsewhere, and MSP for your MSP hosts: one digest of what is waiting on you, ready for review, working or idle; open a session with a brief; read, steer, approve, stop, close; connect a machine in one command. Use for "my sessions", "my agents", "what needs me", another session or machine, "connect <host>", and Herdr asks (workspace, panes, tabs, lanes) when running inside Herdr; not the current pane itself (`herdr`), not peer-session messaging (`list_peer_sessions`).
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。
Read one supplied paper closely enough to reconstruct how its authors actually got there, rather than restating what the abstract claims. Use for 精读论文, 讲透这篇论文, 把这篇读懂, 作者为什么这么设计, 这个公式怎么推出来的, paper x-ray, and deep single-paper comprehension before building on, reviewing, presenting, or citing that paper. Recovers the real starting point and the bet the authors placed, separates load-bearing design from decoration, grounds each key formula in a worked micro-example with concrete numbers, and checks how far the evidence actually reaches, including where the authors are confident and where the paper does not report something. Delivers a structured Markdown long-read by default. Not a summary, not a translation, not 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。
Provide evidence-grounded mock peer review of scientific manuscripts or excerpts, covering significance, validity, and major/minor concerns. Use for 模拟审稿、投稿前自审、审稿人视角评估; not author rebuttal drafting.
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。
Framework for building competitive landscape decks — market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, strategic synthesis. Use when the user asks for a competitive landscape, competitor analysis, peer comparison, market positioning assessment, strategic review, or investment memo deck. Also triggers on "who are the competitors to X", "benchmark X against peers", "build a market map", or any request to systematically evaluate competitive dynamics across an industry.
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-grounded context refresh: reads constitutional files, TELOS, and CURRENT_STATE/IDEAL_STATE dimension files via TelosFreshness, pulls observed data (Oura sleep/HRV, Conduit app-time, work registry, git, expenses via StateEvidence), and drives a peer conversation that opens with claim-vs-evidence contradictions, drafts corrections for ratification, and closes with a ComputeGap-grounded ideal-state review. Routes to ContextCheckin; Phase0Setup on fresh install. USE WHEN /interview, resume interview, context check-in, telos check-in, what's stale, stale data, freshness check, update current state, update my current state, state sync, statusline says interview due, interview due, review TELOS, update ideal state, quarterly context refresh, fresh LifeOS install, configure DA name. NOT FOR single edits (Telos), bulk intake (Migrate), identity-only.
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。
Request cross-AI peer review of phase plans from external AI CLIs
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。