「reviewer」の検索結果

Deep-review-first audit for Chinese and English academic papers across LaTeX, Typst, and PDF formats. Use whenever the user wants reviewer-style paper critique, pre-submission readiness checks, pass/fail gate decisions, structured revision roadmaps, or re-audits of revised manuscripts. Trigger even if the user only says "review my paper", "check if this is ready to submit", "audit this PDF", "simulate peer review", "find the biggest problems in this manuscript", or "re-check whether I fixed the review issues". Do not use for direct source editing or compilation-heavy repair; route those to the format-specific writing skills instead.

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。

经济学顶刊标准审稿Skill。按AER/QJE/Econometrica/JPE顶刊标准审查论文输出（图表+回归表），列出潜在致命缺陷。触发词：顶刊审稿/论文审查/econ reviewer/经济学期刊标准/PR

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。

双重差分(DID)实证审查Skill。做DID分析前必须检查平行趋势假设、画图可视化、报告违背情况。触发词：DID审查/双重差分检查/平行趋势/DiD reviewer/difference-in-differences

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。

Drive ONE already selected open pull request in microsoft/apm to mergeable. Classifies copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot] inline review, runs autopilot-pr-review-worker, folds (by default) every recommendation inside the PR's stated scope, pushes to the head branch or a superseding PR that preserves authorship via commit trailers, watches CI to green (`agent-merge` when that skill or `<agent_merge_state>` is present; otherwise `gh pr checks --watch`), and iterates under fixed caps until ready-to-merge, advisory-with-deferred, superseded, or blocked. Plan before any fold, push, or reviewer request. Never spawned by autopilot-pr-review-scheduler. That scheduler is advisory only. Invoke this skill by name when the caller asked to drive a PR to merge.

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。

Dedicated security-audit route for OWASP-style risks, secret leaks, auth flaws, injection, unsafe input handling, SSRF/XSS, and sensitive-data exposure. Use instead of code-reviewer when the prompt explicitly asks for security, vulnerability, threat, auth, or OWASP 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。

Stops defensive writing across the entire paper lifecycle — writing, revising, cutting, and organizing experiments. Treats the paper as a press conference, not a project summary, lab log, or self-audit: identify the single most publishable strength of the work and build the most favorable, complete, and persuasive narrative around it. Never present everything evenly, never volunteer weakness, never write an experiment diary, never attack the paper on the reviewer's behalf. Triggers: polish my paper, revise manuscript, write abstract, write introduction, write conclusion, shorten paper, rebuttal, respond to reviewers, organize experiments, defensive writing, AI-flavored academic writing.

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。

Simulate structured grant peer review for biomedical proposals; use when stress-testing significance, innovation, approach, feasibility, and reviewer-facing weaknesses before submission.

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。

Acknowledges limitations in sample, design, measurement, and validation in a professional way that improves credibility without undermining the whole paper. Use when writing the limitations paragraph of a Discussion section, preparing a grant risk assessment, responding to reviewers about study weaknesses, or framing scope boundaries for a paper. Also triggers on "write my limitations", "how should I address the limitation of", "reviewer said my sample is too small", or "help me word this limitation".

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。

Qualify a check before it is allowed to clear anything — prove it can detect the failure it is meant to catch. Seeds known defects into a copy of a real artifact plus a clean control, runs the checker, and reports recall and false-positive rate into a qualification ledger. Use when the user says "does this check work", "qualify the gate", "test my reviewer", "seed defects", "vaccinate", "qualify the checks", "can I trust this review", "does it pass for the right reason", or before relying on any automated check or referee simulation for a decision that matters. NOT a code fixer and NOT a reviewer itself — it grades the grader.

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。

Turn an incoming set of findings — from an AI reviewer, a referee report, a code review, a linter, or a second model — into verified fixes, without letting a confident misread damage correct work. Every finding is a CANDIDATE until checked against the actual source. Use whenever you receive review comments, audit findings, or a critique you did not write yourself, especially when the reviewer is a model or when the volume is too large to check by feel.

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。

Format specifications and data contracts for the security reviewer orchestrator and its subagents.

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 rejection workflow and strict lockout semantics

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 writing the response to an American Anthropologist (AA) revise-and-resubmit. AA uses anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, often with cross-subfield reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident and the ethnographic contribution intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new 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。

Use when drafting AISTATS author responses or author-reviewer discussion replies under OpenReview, covering text-only discussion, no-link guidance, no revised-paper upload, anonymity requirements, statistician-reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused clarification strategy for theory-plus-experiments papers.

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 writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the handling editor and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

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 to understand how Agricultural Systems (AgSy) evaluates a manuscript — single-anonymized peer review with a minimum of two reviewers and an editor decision, desk screening for fit and systems content, what reviewers weigh, and the rapid-review track for Perspectives. 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 writing the response to an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) revision decision. AgSy review is single anonymized with at least two expert systems reviewers and an editor decision, and revisions often turn on model evaluation, sensitivity/uncertainty, and trade-off framing. The response must convert each reviewer without alienating the editor. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new results.

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 drafting an ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused replies aimed at the meta-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。

Detect whether approved modeling code is Python or MATLAB/Beita Tianyuan and route it to the matching reviewer using the compact named-check review contract.

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。

Approval cascade definition and tracking for multi-stakeholder document workflows. Internal review sequences, client approval workflows, regulatory review, overdue chasing with escalation logic, version control coordination, and cross-jurisdiction document dependencies. Use when defining who reviews a document and in what order, tracking where a document is stuck in the approval chain, chasing an overdue reviewer, preventing reviewers working on superseded drafts, or mapping dependencies between documents across jurisdictions. Trigger on: 'who needs to approve this', 'document approval', 'review sequence', 'stuck in review', 'overdue approval', 'who has the document', 'version control', 'wrong version', 'document dependency', 'NL SPA waiting on German opinion', 'approval cascade', 'review chain', 'document circulation', 'chasing the partner', 'client approval process', 'where is the document'.

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。

Plan, triage, and write academic rebuttals and review responses. Use when an AI research agent needs to handle conference, journal, workshop, or grant reviews; classify reviewer concerns; decide what evidence or experiments can change the decision; write an AC-facing executive summary; draft per-reviewer responses; correct factual misunderstandings without sounding hostile; handle novelty, baseline, method, experiment, clarity, and scope objections; or produce a final rebuttal checklist.

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 and revise academic papers with a senior-reviewer workflow. Use when an AI research/coding agent needs to work on an existing paper draft, PDF, LaTeX project, Word document, markdown manuscript, rejected paper, or paper idea that already has a concrete direction, and produce: paper maps, weakness audits, insight/novelty checks, reviewer objections, claim-experiment matrices, theory/proof checks, experiment plans, statistics/reproducibility audits, figure/table audits, ethics/compliance checks, revision plans, detailed section edits, or final submission checklists.

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。

Decision guide for delegating to caveman-style subagents. Tells the main thread WHEN to spawn `cavecrew-investigator` (locate code), `cavecrew-builder` (1-2 file edit), or `cavecrew-reviewer` (diff review) instead of doing the work inline or using vanilla `Explore`. Subagent output is caveman-compressed so the tool-result injected back into main context is ~60% smaller — main context lasts longer across long sessions. Trigger: "delegate to subagent", "use cavecrew", "spawn investigator/builder/reviewer", "save context", "compressed agent output".

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 academic paper review workflow covering self-review before submission and rebuttal writing after receiving reviewer feedback. Triggers on "review paper", "self-review", "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "analyze review comments", "paper 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。