「critique」の検索結果

Generate journal club slides with background, critique, and discussion.

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。

Comprehensive multi-perspective review using specialized judges with debate and consensus building

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。

Launch an intelligent sub-agent with automatic model selection based on task complexity, specialized agent matching, Zero-shot CoT reasoning, and mandatory self-critique verification

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。

Curates insights from reflections and critiques into CLAUDE.md using Agentic Context Engineering

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 or audit a design/UI across 6 weighted dimensions with Nielsen's 10 heuristics and a prioritized findings table. Use when the user wants a design critique, quality score, heuristic evaluation, or audit of an existing screen, page, or product before/after build.

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。

Independently assess an RPI plan without editing it. Use when an implementation-ready plan needs a credibility check or a revised plan needs its earlier findings reconciled.

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。

Create or resume an evidence-based RPI implementation plan with an optional independent critique. Use when a task needs an implementation plan or an existing plan needs revision.

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。

Coach a UX practitioner through problem framing, running a design critique, or making an evidence-backed case to a skeptical stakeholder. Use when the practitioner has a live UX task and wants to think it through rather than receive an answer.

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 an LLM agent design and find where it will be unreliable, expensive, or unsafe. Use when asked to review an agent architecture, critique a multi-step/tool-using agent, debug an agent that loops or goes off-task, or harden an agent before launch. Produces a structured review — task fit, control flow, tools, memory/context, failure handling, cost, and safety — with prioritised findings and fixes.

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 this skill when planning, redesigning, or reviewing Xiaohongshu carousel visuals, covers, 3:4 image posts, page-by-page visual direction, image-generation prompts, style selection, layout critique, or XHS captions. It acts as a senior visual director for 小红书图文, not a generic copywriting assistant.

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 the unprimed sub agent as a second set of eyes before accepting visual work — MANDATORY before declaring any user-reported visual bug fixed or claiming a visual change verified; primed eyes pass defects fresh eyes catch.

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。

Critical pre-implementation review. Find what AI breaks. Verdict: PROCEED, REVISE, or RETHINK. Triggers: review plan, tear apart, critique, analyze.

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。

Three modes for CS-conference papers (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV vision, ACL/EMNLP/NAACL NLP, ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/AAAI ML). DIRECT-EDIT mode (common): the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the manuscript (LaTeX or Markdown) is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit with author sign-off (use for 改这段 / 把中文想法写成 latex / polish / de-AI / translate / compress a passage). REVIEW mode (occasional, pre-submission): harden the paper through an adversarial courtroom review engine (N holistic domain reviewers / contestability routing / two-sided trial / three-way verdict / clerk-converged multi-round loop) with consensus-gated, author-signed revisions (use for review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review). AUTO mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal): run the review-revise loop toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing risky ones. Resolves all inputs at runtime, no hardcoded paths. Not a from-scratch drafter (use ml-paper-writing) and not an official-venue 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。

Estimates the minimum biological replicates (or cells/events) for a target power at a target FDR in genomics experiments using ssizeRNA, PROPER, powsimR for scRNA-seq, and pilot-data dispersion estimation from DESeq2/edgeR. Covers the biological-versus-technical replication distinction (technical replicates do not add degrees of freedom for biological inference), replicate-number-versus-sequencing-depth budgeting, scRNA-seq sample-versus-cell allocation under a pseudobulk model, and the critique that "n=3" is a publication convention rather than a power calculation. Use when budgeting a sequencing experiment, writing the sample-size justification in a grant, estimating replicates from pilot data, allocating a fixed budget between samples and depth, or planning scRNA-seq cohort size. For clinical-trial sample size see clinical-biostatistics/power-and-sample-size; for the power-given-n direction see experimental-design/power-analysis.

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。

Delimits putative species boundaries from molecular data within the de Queiroz 2007 unified-lineage framework using ASAP (Puillandre 2021 successor to ABGD), mPTP C++ (Kapli 2017 successor to bPTP; bPTP is Python NOT R), GMYC single/multi-threshold (Pons 2006; Fujisawa 2013), multilocus BPP v4 with prior calibration from data (NOT defaults; Yang 2015), SNAPP + BFD* for SNP delimitation, DELINEATE (Sukumaran 2021) speciation-process modeling to address Sukumaran & Knowles 2017 PNAS critique that MSC delimits structure not species, integrative-taxonomy congruence (Padial 2010; Carstens 2013), Dsuite for introgression testing before sister claims (Malinsky 2021), and Meyer & Paulay 2005 barcoding-gap-absence caveat. Use when delineating species from DNA barcoding data, resolving cryptic complexes, choosing among ASAP/mPTP/BPP/DELINEATE, calibrating BPP priors, distinguishing introgression from ILS, or applying the Sukumaran-Knowles oversplitting correction.

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。

Handles batch effects in bulk RNA-seq via design-matrix inclusion (the correct path for DE), ComBat/ComBat-seq for visualization, SVA for unknown latent factors, RUVSeq for negative-control-gene-anchored unwanted variation, and limma::removeBatchEffect for plotting only. Encodes the Nygaard 2016 cardinal sin against testing on a batch-corrected matrix, the choice between SVA/RUVg/RUVs/RUVr, the confounding non-identifiability problem, the single-cell boundary (Harmony/MNN are NOT for bulk), and the Goh 2017 harmonization critique. Use when designing a DE analysis with batch structure, troubleshooting batch-dominated PCA, choosing ComBat vs ComBat-seq, handling unknown batch via SVA, integrating across studies, or deciding when (rarely) to subtract batch.

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。

Produce and interpret PCA, t-SNE, UMAP, and PHATE plots for high-dimensional omics data with rigor about which method preserves what (variance, local structure, manifold, transitions), hyperparameter sensitivity, and the well-documented limits of 2D embeddings. Covers PCA biplot/scree/loadings, t-SNE PCA initialization (Kobak-Berens 2019), UMAP n_neighbors/min_dist trade-offs, and the Chari-Pachter 2023 critique. Use when visualizing high-dimensional data — bulk PCA, single-cell embeddings, multi-omics integration projections.

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。

Select colormaps and qualitative palettes for scientific figures using perceptual-uniformity, color-vision-deficiency safety, and luminance-monotonicity criteria. Covers Crameri scientific colormaps, viridis/cividis/magma, Okabe-Ito categorical, ColorBrewer, and the rainbow/jet critique. Use when choosing palettes for heatmaps, scatter, networks, or any encoding where color carries quantitative or categorical meaning.

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 the design of an existing Power Pages site - a live URL or a local project folder - and recommends what to change, without modifying anything. Captures up to eight key pages at desktop and mobile, scores them against the plugin's design rubric (first impression, hierarchy, narrative, copy, trust, brand, responsive and accessible design, motion, detail), and returns prioritized, concrete recommendations. Use when the user wants a design review, critique, or audit of a site, asks how to make an existing site look better, more polished, or more impressive, or asks why it looks generic or dated.

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 creating or revising finished video thumbnails or cover images with Scenario: game trailers, boss reveals, patch updates, devlogs, or community videos needing readable composition, exact headline text and consistent characters. Not for title ideas or critique alone, in-video title cards, or a generic image without a thumbnail deliverable.

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 a Scenario output must be checked and improved rather than accepted first roll: iterating a generation until it matches the brief, fixing a batch that came back off-brief, retrying failed shots methodically, wiring an automated generate, review, revise loop, or deciding whether to re-prompt, swap references, inpaint, post-process, or change model. Keywords: refine, iterate, critique, review loop, QA, self-correction, verify, acceptance criteria, retry, drift.

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 automated codex⇄Claude debate to consensus — no round cap, no deadlock exit. Two explicit subcommands. `review` (also the bare/back-compat default) — codex (reviewer) critiques the current diff and a Claude subagent (author) fixes/disputes, looping until they agree. `answer` — Claude and codex each answer a freeform prompt in parallel, then cross-check until they agree, and a unified answer is returned. Use when the user types `/codex-debate`, asks to "have codex review this", "run the codex debate", "review this PR with codex", "argue this with codex until you agree", or passes a question to "have Claude and codex debate/answer until they agree".

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。

Design critique with 7 rated passes: Information Architecture, Interaction State Coverage, User Journey and Emotional Arc, AI Slop Risk (10-item blacklist), Design System Alignment, Responsive and Accessibility, Unresolved Decisions. Each rated 0-10 with gap-fill loop. Parallel cross-model design voices.

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。