「auditor」の検索結果

Audit spreadsheet, formula error detection, hardcoded cell finder, cross-sheet reference audit, workbook auditor, Excel model audit, financial model QA, spreadsheet review, cell dependency trace, formula integrity 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。

Think and work like an expert Audiologist. Use when a task calls for Audiologist judgment. Reasons from auditory transduction, site-of-lesion localization, audibility, and noise dose-response through calibrated pure-tone/masking audiometry, immittance, OAE and ABR/ASSR, and real-ear verification against NAL-NL2/DSL targets while treating unmasked cross-hearing, collapsed ear canals, transducer miscalibration, and non-organic loss as first-class failure modes.

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 the knowledge/ base and the .claude/ skills, agents and workflows for staleness, self-contradiction, and drift from their own stated rules — four independent adversarial auditors (two lenses over two trees) verify every load-bearing claim against the current tree, cross-examine each other within their tree, and reach a consensus on if/what needs changing. Use periodically, after a run of deliveries that changed build config, target layout or the skills themselves, or whenever you suspect the docs have aged out of true.

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 web pages and components for WCAG 2.2 accessibility compliance. Use when a user asks to check accessibility, find a11y issues, audit for WCAG compliance, fix screen reader problems, check color contrast, ensure keyboard navigation works, or prepare for accessibility regulations like the European Accessibility Act or ADA.

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。

Conversion Rate Optimization auditing for landing pages, signup flows, checkout funnels, forms, and CTAs. Identifies friction points, runs heuristic evaluations, produces prioritized recommendations using ICE/PIE frameworks. Use when the user asks about conversion optimization, funnel analysis, landing page audits, form optimization, CTA testing, or checkout improvement.

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。

Synthesize the single strongest EVIDENCE-BOUND reviewer case to reject a paper, built ONLY from the evidence ledger (claims.json) + the other auditors' confirmed findings — never free-floating LLM critique. Two fresh cross-model codex threads: an attack writes the ~200-word rejection paragraph (every accusation tagged to an existing claim_id/finding_id), a defense decomposes it and rules each point against the anchored evidence. MEMO-ONLY: emits adversarial-case-builder.memo.md (fed to the adjudicator via --memo) and carries NO verdict weight — tools/adjudicate_findings.py lists it in ZERO_WEIGHT_SKILLS and caps it at info. Honest-null allowed (the paper may survive). Run LAST. Detect-only. Adapted from ARIS kill-argument. Triggers: "adversarial case", "strongest objection", "rejection memo", "kill argument", "最强拒稿点".

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。

Transparent, itemized impressions of AI-generated WRITING STYLE — the repo's ONLY non-integrity track. Two passes: a deterministic defensive-hedge density screen (tools/check_ai_style.py, AIS-DEFENSIVE-HEDGE) plus a fresh cross-model GROSS-cases-only semantic pass over the 13 AIS-* style tells (broken narrative arc, LLM phrase tics, jargon-stuffing, invented codenames, clause/formula walls, gratuitous pseudocode, bullet overuse, bold-module spam, restatement loops, focus drift, single-style figures, appendix dumping). Every finding is named, LOCATED, span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json), carries not_integrity_finding:true + false_positive_risk:high + an fp_case, and gets ZERO verdict weight: the adjudicator forces it to info, excludes it from overall_verdict, and renders it in a SEPARATE report section. NOT an AI-text classifier — no scores, no "this is AI-written", no authorship probability; a paper can be CLEAN_GIVEN_EVIDENCE and still list many. Emits ai-style-impressions.findings.json; computes NO verdict; if a tell is actually substantive it routes to the integrity auditor. Triggers: "AI style", "vibe check", "writing fingerprint", "AI 文风", "vibe paper".

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。

End-to-end substantive-integrity forensic sweep of a research paper (especially autoresearch / AI-Scientist-style output). Orchestrates the whole pipeline: ingest (arxiv-id | pdf | dir → working dir + pdftotext for L0) → /evidence-ledger (artifact manifest + observability level L0/L1/L2 + span-anchored claims.json) → fan out the integrity auditor skills (consistency, citation, baseline, experiment, presentation, proof-derivation, eval-design — each reads the ledger, emits span-anchored findings) + the zero-verdict-weight AIS writing-style track → advisory memos (/adversarial-case-builder + /novelty-duplication-advisory, no verdict weight) → deterministic tools/adjudicate_findings.py (--ledger REQUIRED) → reviewer-ready Integrity Forensics Report. Cross-model (fresh codex per dimension) and reviewer≠adjudicator: the model proposes findings, the deterministic adjudicator decides the verdict. Observability-aware, detect-only, never an opaque AI-text classifier (a separate zero-weight AIS section lists AI writing-style impressions, never moving the verdict). Triggers: "anti-autoresearch", "integrity audit this paper", "forensic review", "audit a submission", "审一篇投稿的诚信".

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。

Audits any landing or service page across 48 checks in 10 categories for LLM/AI discoverability, GEO readiness, content clarity, schema markup, internal linking, freshness signals, and technical crawlability. Produces an overall score out of 100, a per-category score out of 100, pass/warn/fail/ manual counts, and a prioritised fix list — all rendered as a standalone HTML report saved to disk. Use when a user provides a URL and asks to audit it, score it, check its GEO readiness, test its AI discoverability, run a landing page audit, or evaluate it for LLM citation potential. Also trigger on phrases like "audit this page", "score this URL", "check GEO for", "is this page AI-ready", "run a GEO audit", "LLM page check", "how would AI read this page", or "landing page score".

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。

Audits any SDK documentation site and produces a fully scored, downloadable HTML report. Use this skill whenever a user provides a documentation URL and asks to audit, review, analyse, score, or check the quality of SDK docs. Also trigger for phrases like "audit the SDK docs at X", "check if the docs at X are complete", "review this SDK documentation", "how good are these docs", "run an SDK audit on X", or any time a user pastes a URL alongside words like audit, review, crawl, check, analyse, quality, completeness, or gaps. ALWAYS use this skill — do not attempt the audit without following this structured crawl → analyse → cross-reference → report workflow.

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。

Audits any developer documentation site across 33 checks in 7 categories and produces a scored report (out of 100) with Pass / Warn / Fail status per check. Use this skill whenever a user provides a docs URL and asks to audit it, review it, score it, check its quality, or evaluate it for AI discoverability, SEO, structure, content, or completeness. Also trigger when the user says "run a docs audit", "audit these docs", "check this documentation", "how good are the docs for X", or pastes a docs URL with any evaluative intent. Always use this skill — do not attempt a freeform docs review without following this structured workflow.

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 launch readiness; report ship/no-ship.

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 pre-design questioning to surface hidden constraints before any architecture decision is locked in. Forces the architect/auditor/reviewer to enumerate what they DON'T know before proposing.

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。

Audits an existing lesson against UDL's three principles — engagement, representation, and action/expression. Identifies specific access barriers and suggests concrete modifications ranked by impact.

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 code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code"

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。

Automatically detect and de-identify PII (Personal Identifiable Information) and PHI (Protected Health Information) from clinical/medical text to ensure HIPAA compliance. Trigger when processing medical records, patient data, clinical notes, insurance information, or any healthcare-related text containing potential patient identifiers.

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。

Verify claims, quotes, timelines, and findings against supplied source files and return a source map with verified, conflicting, not found, and manual-review statuses. Use when the user asks to fact-check a memo, audit, timeline, executive summary, research packet, or project brief against PDFs, XML, HTML, notes, screenshots, exported chat logs, or other supplied files before sending, publishing, or relying on 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。

Autonomous orchestrator that scans, refactors, and eradicates technical debt at the end of the development lifecycle to achieve a Zero Debt codebase / Orkestrator otonom untuk menghapus utang teknis sebelum rilis.

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。

Audits GitHub Actions workflows for security vulnerabilities in AI agent integrations including Claude Code Action, Gemini CLI, OpenAI Codex, and GitHub AI Inference. Detects attack vectors where attacker-controlled input reaches AI agents running in CI/CD pipelines, including env var intermediary patterns, direct expression injection, dangerous sandbox configurations, and wildcard user allowlists. Use when reviewing workflow files that invoke AI coding agents, auditing CI/CD pipeline security for prompt injection risks, or evaluating agentic action configurations.

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。

Synthesis step in the multi-angle technical research pipeline. Receives structured outputs from all four research angles (api-state, ecosystem-research, impact-measurement, codebase-auditor), applies cross-angle signal weighting and conflict resolution, and produces a single synthesized Research section. Invoked by the technical-researcher orchestrator after all angle skills complete. Returns content to the orchestrator — does not write to the backlog.

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。

Local codebase analysis research angle — derives behavioral contracts, coding conventions, SKILL.md flow insertion points, and agent data availability maps from actual source files. Use when the blocking question is answered by reading the repository: what does this function actually do, what pattern does the codebase use for X, where in this workflow does a new step go, or what data does this agent already have.

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 architecting new Claude Code agents following Anthropic best practices. Guides through YAML frontmatter creation, agent structure definition, role boundaries, and validation. Critical for creating minimal agent files (~150 lines) with proper skill invocations. Examples: <example>Context: User wants to create a new agent for security auditing user: "Create a security-auditor agent" assistant: "I'll use the agent-creator skill to build this agent following Anthropic best practices" <commentary>New agent creation requires the agent-creator skill to ensure proper structure and YAML frontmatter.</commentary></example> <example>Context: Existing agent file is too verbose and needs refactoring user: "The architect agent is 2000 lines, refactor it to minimal structure" assistant: "I'll use the agent-creator skill to refactor this into a minimal ~150 line agent with a separate skill file" <commentary>Agent refactoring requires the agent-creator skill to separate identity from technical procedures.</commentary></example>

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-agent adversarial code review. Spawns three reviewer subagents (Auditor, Adversary, Pragmatist) on a single model, runs a cross-examination round, then deterministically synthesizes a single ranked report. Use this for non-trivial PRs, security-sensitive changes, refactors that touch many files, or any change where one perspective has obvious blind spots. Trigger phrases include "adverse review", "adversarial review", "multi-perspective review", "review my changes from multiple angles", "panel review". NOT suitable for trivial diffs (typos, dependency bumps, formatting).

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。