971 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
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。
[omh] Ambitious project goal needing many build cycles: agentic interviewer -> planner -> researcher -> builder -> reviewer cycles until a real gate. Use when the user says: loop, goal loop, long horizon goal, never stop, research plan goal feedback, token exhaustion resume, permission profile, star 10k.
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。
Fill missing i18n translations in the viewer source JSON. Run this after adding or modifying English or Chinese UI strings in claude_tap/viewer_i18n.json — it auto-translates to ja, ko, fr, ar, de, ru via OpenRouter.
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。
Render a self-contained HTML viewer for a pro-workflow wiki. Pages, sources, claims, seed queue, page-link graph and full-text search all in one file. No external dependencies, no JS framework, S3-uploadable. Use when the user wants to browse a wiki visually, share its current state with someone, audit research progress, or hand off a knowledge base. Inspired by Thariq Shihipar's "Unreasonable Effectiveness of HTML" — favors information density and shareability over markdown-only outputs.
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 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 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 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 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 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。
Interactive cell annotation and image QC for IMC/MIBI using napari, napari-imc, Mantis Viewer, and cytomapper, covering the pixels-to-cell-table bridge, overlaying masks to catch segmentation/spillover artifacts, inter-annotator variability as the accuracy ceiling, contrast-as-threshold, and building class-balanced ground-truth label sets. Use when manually labeling cells, generating training data for a classifier, QC-ing segmentation on the image, confirming clusters are spatially real, or choosing an annotation viewer.
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。
Display 3-D image volumes, medical image volumes, surface meshes, and annotations for 3-D image processing. Use when displaying 3-D images or isosurfaces with volshow, creating volume viewers with viewer3d, adding Regions of Interest (ROI) or annotations, overlaying masks or segmentations, streaming volumetric data, or building apps with volume display.
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。
Display images and annotations for image processing, computer vision, and visual inspection. Use when displaying images with imageshow, creating image viewers with viewer2d, adding Regions of Interest (ROI) or annotations, overlaying masks or segmentations, streaming video frames, or building apps with image display.
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。
Render Codex, Claude Code, OpenClaw, or Pi session JSONL transcripts as a searchable, shareable single-file HTML viewer.
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。
Internal implementation skill invoked by /add-native for native PDF control workflows. Handles HTTPS and file URI PDF viewing with @microsoft/power-apps-native-pdf-viewer 0.2.9+.
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。