「peer review」の検索結果

Chinese-first research paper writing, revision, polishing, section drafting, rebuttal, peer-review response, thesis prose improvement, and manuscript argument planning. Use when the user asks to write or revise论文正文, abstracts, introductions, methods, results, discussion, conclusions, related work, responses to reviewers, LaTeX/Overleaf text, or academic prose. Preserve formulas, English paper titles, terms, citations, and measured 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。

Scholarly research companion using Knows sidecar spec (.knows.yaml). Generates, validates, reviews, queries, and compares structured research-paper sidecars, and fetches them from knows.academy. Use for academic literature search, survey synthesis, paper authoring assistance, and peer review with token-efficient claim/evidence/relation access.

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 performing architecture document 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。

Requirements quality critique dimensions for peer review - confirmation bias detection, completeness validation, clarity checks, testability assessment, 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。

Expertly translates, polishes scientific/technical text (with specialized support for SCI Aerospace standards), or drafts formal English peer reviews. Ensures accuracy, clarity, and adherence to high academic standards.

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。

Interpret third-party feedback by running parallel internal and peer interpretations to surface intent, correctness concerns, and ambiguities. Use when the user asks to "interpret feedback", "interpret comments", "what does this feedback mean", "clarify reviewer intent", "understand this review", or "interpret these suggestions".

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。

Adversarial review and fix loop for code, specs, plans, and migration manifests.

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 of academic 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。

TRIGGER THIS when conducting performance reviews, writing manager feedback, creating self-assessments, building peer feedback, developing PIPs, creating development plans, or handling difficult performance conversations. Helps write constructive, specific, actionable feedback that develops performance and documents performance management appropriately.

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。

Provider-independent governance workflow for verifying and correcting human- or model-generated video descriptions. Use for pre-caption critique and post-caption revision, aspect-by-aspect factual review, critique precision/recall/constructiveness, second-stage peer review, calibration, appeals, versioned triplets, provenance, and acceptance reporting; not for pixel/audio QA, accessibility captioning, model training, or creative shot direction.

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。

Save a contact someone shared with you (a Contact card) as a local peer. agent-talk does NOT auto-import — review staged cards and import only ones from a peer you trust. `<user>` is this session's user directory (absolute path; from init).

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。

Audit an implementation against its plan with a hostile peer agent, debate findings to consensus, and drive fix waves until the auditor runs dry. Use when a done-claim needs verification the implementer cannot game ("hostile review", "adversarial audit", "is this PR faithful", "find the escape hatches") — the loop that beats the laziness bias with its own game theory.

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。

Peer review checklist and quality standards for intelligence products, plus schema validation for graded evidence items and claim tables from /quality-of-information-check and /claim-extraction. Rejects outputs that break the evidence schema or the grading caps. Loaded by the quality-reviewer agent.

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。

Consult this skill BEFORE proposing a fix to any CLI gap or schema gap that touches evidence, trust magnitude, evidence types, evidence grades, the TM formula, or star-level promotion gates. Also read it whenever an issue mentions citations, stars, commits, contributors, views, reviewers, percentile, arxiv, github-stars-own, repo-own, social-signal, benchmark-result, peer-review, self-attestation, fusion-recipe, verifier-attestation, or proxy-containment — those are the 10 canonical evidence types and the raw inputs that feed their formulas. Also read it when asked whether a skill qualifies for a given star level (0★–6★): the Star Bar and promotion gates live in `META.md`, not in the TM methodology page. Reading both prevents proposing a calibration that satisfies the TM grade threshold but violates a Star Bar installability or link requirement.

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 planning, implementing, or reviewing frontend dependency upgrades, package migrations, lockfile changes, major framework version bumps, CVE remediation, peer dependency conflicts, ESM/CJS shifts, build-tool compatibility, or CI verification matrices; Chinese triggers include dependency upgrades, version upgrades, lockfile, peer dependency, CVE fixes, major version migrations.

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 academic research workflow for topic ideation, scholarly search, paper reading, literature and systematic reviews, study and experiment design, statistics and data analysis, scientific figures, manuscript drafting and polishing, citation checks, peer review, rebuttals, submission packages, theses, and paper-to-presentation work. Use when an agent must plan, execute, audit, write, revise, or package research while keeping claims traceable to verified sources, data, analysis, or official requirements.

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 a two-agent independent review/redteam followed by peer collaboration to produce a consensus superset of findings and enumerated revision requests. Use when Codex 5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 should first critique a matter independently, then exchange work, synthesize the best combined analysis, and finish with a single agreed revision list.

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 OpenAI Codex CLI as a peer collaboration partner — same standing as Claude, not a one-shot tool. Bring Codex in EARLY (ideation, framing decisions, stuck moments), not only for late peer-review. Hand it strategic context (target, research, draft, reasoning), iterate conversationally over ~3-8 turns, converge before surfacing to the human. Invoke when the user says "check / iterate / ideate with Codex" or "ask Codex" — and proactively when stuck between two reasonable framings, pressure-testing a load-bearing claim or structure, or about to ask the human to pick between options two agents could resolve.

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。

Expert knowledge of academic writing standards for peer-reviewed papers, including citation integrity, style compliance, clarity, and scientific writing best practices. Use when reviewing or editing academic manuscripts, papers, or research documentation.

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 OpenAI Codex CLI as a peer collaboration partner — same standing as Claude, not a one-shot tool. Bring Codex in EARLY (ideation, framing decisions, stuck moments), not only for late peer-review. Hand it strategic context (target, research, draft, reasoning), iterate conversationally over ~3-8 turns, converge before surfacing to the human. Invoke when the user says "check / iterate / ideate with Codex" or "ask Codex" — and proactively when stuck between two reasonable framings, pressure-testing a load-bearing claim or structure, or about to ask the human to pick between options two agents could resolve.

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。

Expert knowledge of academic writing standards for peer-reviewed papers, including citation integrity, style compliance, clarity, and scientific writing best practices. Use when reviewing or editing academic manuscripts, papers, or research documentation.

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。

Write academic research documents following academic guidelines with peer-reviewed sources from Google Scholar and other academic databases. Always verify source credibility and generate IEEE standard references. Use for research papers, literature reviews, technical reports, theses, dissertations, conference papers, and academic proposals requiring proper citations and scholarly rigor.

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。

Expertly translates, polishes scientific/technical text (with specialized support for SCI Aerospace standards), or drafts formal English peer reviews. Ensures accuracy, clarity, and adherence to high academic standards.

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。