「critique」の検索結果

Draws original hand-written SVG spot illustrations in the One-line style, joyful action figures doing design and coding work. One continuous uniform black line (2.3 px at 480 wide) loops and doubles back to draw the whole figure. Flat coral, periwinkle and white patches sit behind the line, wobbly and deliberately knocked 2–6 px out of register like a misprinted riso. Tops carry coral stripe lines, and there is no ground plane, only a squiggle, a curl or a few speed strokes, all on warm beige paper. Covers the palette, a route-building toolkit (tube limbs, hand and shoe loops, wobble patches, masks), poses, composition and a render-critique loop. Use when asked for one-line, single-line, continuous-line, misregistered, riso-style or playful doodle illustrations, for empty states, onboarding, 404 pages, blog headers, feature spots, launch announcements or marketing cards.

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。

Draws original hand-written SVG spot scenes in the Line interior style, wide airy rooms or terraces where slim, realistic people do design and coding work. A thin uniform indigo outline (1.4 px at 480 wide) runs around mostly white fills. Sparse flat accents (teal, sage, coral, mustard, lavender, peach wood) cover under 7% of the card. Pale lavender 1 px background decor (brick clusters, pendant lamps, framed posters) sits behind, and a long floor line with end dashes runs under it all. Covers the palette, line weights, heads and hands from a parts toolkit, composition and a render-critique loop. Use when asked for line-art, thin-line or outline illustrations, indigo line art, office, desk, home-workspace, remote-work or team scenes, or interior spot illustrations for empty states, onboarding screens, 404 pages, blog headers, feature spots, landing sections or marketing cards.

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 guide for the Gemini Notebook (formerly Google NotebookLM) CLI (`nlm`) and MCP server - interfaces for Gemini Notebook. Use this skill when users want to interact with Gemini Notebook programmatically, including: creating/managing notebooks, checking plan usage and quota windows, adding sources (URLs, YouTube, text, Google Drive), generating content (podcasts, reports, interactive reports, quizzes, flashcards, mind maps, slides, infographics, videos, data tables), conducting research, chatting with sources, or automating Gemini Notebook workflows. Triggers on mentions of "nlm", "notebooklm", "Gemini Notebook", "plan usage", "quota", "podcast generation", "audio overview", "interactive report", "lesson report", "refactor document", "critique draft", or any Gemini Notebook-related automation task.

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 design skill fused from Impeccable + custom extensions. Covers design philosophy, anti-AI-slop patterns, typography, color (OKLCH), spatial design, motion, interaction, responsive, UX writing, state management, engineering, and 4 style variants. Includes 20 command skills for audit/critique/polish/animate/etc.

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。

Shape pitches, brand stories, presentations, and creative writing with narrative frameworks such as the Hero's Journey, Story Spine, and Freytag's Pyramid. Use when a user wants to structure, critique, or strengthen a story.

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。

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。

Run the proofreading protocol on academic writing — papers or manuscripts. Checks grammar, typos, layout issues, consistency, and academic writing quality. Produces a report without editing files. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants surface-level writing errors found — not substantive academic critique. Triggers include: "proofread", "check for typos", "grammar check", "look for errors in my draft", "proofread all", "polish this", "check my writing", "are there any mistakes", "proofread before I send this", or when the user wants a clean-up pass rather than feedback on arguments or methods.

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。

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial 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。

Apply the ScholarEval framework to systematically evaluate scholarly work across quality dimensions (novelty, rigor, significance, and clarity). Use to critique academic papers, research proposals, literature reviews, or grant applications and produce a structured, criterion-based assessment.

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。

Frame a new design proposal (RFC-shape) under proposals/ — problem before solution, named beneficiary and observable change, real alternatives, honest drawbacks, and a live open-questions backlog. Read when asked to frame a proposal, write an RFC, propose a design, pitch a change, draft a PRD-style design doc, or open a design proposal for review. Do NOT read to record a decision after it is accepted (use record-a-decision), to write an implementation spec (use write-a-spec), to write a postmortem (use write-a-postmortem), or to review or critique an existing design (use review-a-design).

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 a blameless incident postmortem under postmortems/ following the Google SRE shape — evidence-based timeline, trigger vs root cause vs symptom, contributing factors, what went well, and owned+dated+verifiable action items. Read when asked to write a postmortem, do an incident review, run a root cause analysis, write up the outage, retro on the outage, or when the user says we had an incident and wants it documented. Do NOT read to frame a proposal (use frame-a-proposal), write a spec (use write-a-spec), record a decision (use record-a-decision), or review a design (use review-a-design) — a postmortem documents an incident that already happened, it does not propose, specify, decide, or critique future work.

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。

Reviews whether a design is SOUND — solving the right problem, derived from its stated goals and constraints — and emits ranked, evidence-backed findings, not edits. Read when asked to 'review this design', 'is this design sound', 'pressure-test this proposal', 'do a design review', 'does this solve the right problem', 'poke holes in this spec', 'should we build this', or to critique a proposal / spec / ADR / architecture or product decision. Do NOT read when the user wants to AUTHOR one of these — routing a new proposal is frame-a-proposal, a spec is write-a-spec, a decision record is record-a-decision, a postmortem is write-a-postmortem. Do NOT read for code review of a diff, or to fact-check individual claims (that is a correctness pass, a different job).

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 chart choice, labeling, accessibility, and storytelling quality for existing visualizations. Use as an explicit/manual helper for critique and cleanup, not as the main owner for scientific figure production or general chart 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。

Delegate tasks to OpenAI Codex CLI and Google Antigravity CLI from Claude Code. Say 'check with codex' or 'ask gemini for a second opinion' and Claude runs the other agent, keeps a topic-aware session, and critiques the result.

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。

Stop coding agents from shipping generic UI. Use UIZZE's 800,000+ real web and iOS screens to build product-specific interfaces, define a design contract, cover required states, and run a hard finish gate. Use for web or iOS UI design, implementation, redesign, critique, and pre-ship review in Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, and other coding agents.

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] Outside AI critique wanted: consulting an external advisor when configured. Use when the user says: ask, external advisor, ask claude, ask gemini, consult claude, consult gemini, opinion from claude, opinion from gemini.

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。

Professional logo and brand-mark design, from brief to production files. Guides discovery and the design brief, concept generation, choosing a mark type (wordmark, monogram, letterform, pictorial, abstract, emblem, mascot, combination), building clean geometric SVG logos, optical refinement, colour and typography, testing (16 px, one-colour, reversed, shelf test), client presentation, delivery variants and brand guidelines. Includes a searchable library of 1,400+ real-world SVG logos classified by type, technique, geometry and industry, plus scripts that audit SVGs and generate test sheets, presentation boards and export variants. Use this skill whenever the user wants a logo, logotype, wordmark, monogram, brand mark, symbol, app icon or favicon designed, redesigned, refreshed, critiqued or compared; asks for logo ideas or concepts; needs a design brief, logo guidelines, lockups or an identity system; or mentions branding a new company, product, app or project — even if they don't say the word "logo".

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-agnostic multi-LLM deliberation. Three phases — independent responses, cross-model anonymized ranking, chairman synthesis. Credentials come from explicit plugin configuration or pro-workflow-specific CLI variables. Persists transcript to a wiki page when --wiki <slug> is passed. Use when the user wants multiple AI perspectives, consensus-building, or the "LLM Council" approach for high-stakes reviews, plan critique, or contested learning rules.

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 an expert review against Nielsen's heuristics and domain criteria, with severity ratings. Use when you need findings without recruiting participants. For a facilitated team feedback session, use `design-critique` (design-ops).

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。

Establish review gates — criteria, checkpoints, and approval flow. Use when work ships without consistent review. For running one individual session, use `design-critique`.

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。

Doctrine for designing and evolving any **SDK** Grida ships — TypeScript, Rust, or otherwise. "SDK" here means a surface that crosses a foreign-or-foreign-treated boundary: published packages, separately-versioned consumers, FFI bindings, public-by-design modules. An SDK's job is to refuse; a strict, honest surface rejects the wrong contents and keeps the package testable in isolation. Default is "core, not customizable"; customization is the exception, defended by a deciding table. Use when authoring or evolving any such surface — `@grida/*` published packages, engine crates (gridaco/nothing `crates/*`) published or FFI-exported, intent/message vocabularies, any contract a second author will compile against. Internal-only helper packages are welcome to follow, not forced. Companion skill for two-sided contract work: $sdk-seam. Critique partners: $pedantic, $etiology. Related: $naming.

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。

Role profile — a reviewer who is fact-seeking, bedrock-seeking, honest, and rejecting. Demands that arguments rest on small facts that cannot be wrong (not on stacked assumptions dressed up as foundation), and that deliberately-unclear concepts be quarantined — never leaked into solid layers, never mixed with each other. Catches the failure mode where designs ship after partial grounding: most of the spec researched, the design feels finished, and the unresearched remainder holds the deal-breaker. Invoke with `/pedantic <target>` (e.g. `/pedantic review this design doc`, `/pedantic review the SDK design`, `/pedantic review this PR`). Probes cover logical structure (definitions, assumptions, boundaries, contradictions, unfalsifiability, vague quantifiers, counterexamples), epistemic honesty (researchable vs. discoverable-only-by-doing), bedrock integrity (assumed-bedrock, leaked uncertainty, mixed unclarity), and design pathology (YAGNI, wrong-layer abstraction, unclear responsibility, fragmentation, over-engineering). Use when you want a hard critique of a plan, design doc, technical doc, code change, or PR description — not a copy edit, not a vibe check.

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。

Upgrade Three.js games from prototype visuals to premium browser graphics: art-direction critique, procedural model building, material and texture libraries, world prop kits, shaders, VFX, lighting and render pipeline, LOD and instancing, render budgets, and a 10-category visual scorecard. Use when screenshots still look basic or the user asks for premium, AAA, high-fidelity, showcase, or less-basic graphics.

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。

Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Use for authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.

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。