「critique」の検索結果

Package a video: title and thumbnail-text pairs that never repeat words, or critique them. "why is no one clicking this video"

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 academic papers for correctness, quality, and novelty using OpenJudge's multi-stage pipeline. Supports PDF files and LaTeX source packages (.tar.gz/.zip). Covers 10 disciplines: cs, medicine, physics, chemistry, biology, economics, psychology, environmental_science, mathematics, social_sciences. Use when the user asks to review, evaluate, critique, or assess a research paper, check references, or verify a BibTeX file.

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。

Structure a decision or design challenge through multiple perspectives before committing to action. Use as a synthesis step after scoping, mapping, and dilemma navigation when a group needs a wiser next step.

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。

Step 2 of the PaperOrchestra pipeline (arXiv:2604.05018). Execute the visualization plan from outline.json — render plots and conceptual diagrams from experimental_log.md and idea.md, optionally refine via VLM critique loop, and produce context-aware captions. Runs in parallel with the literature-review-agent. TRIGGER when the orchestrator delegates Step 2 or when the user asks to "generate the figures for my paper" or "render the plots from this experiment log".

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 critique dimensions for peer review - implementation bias detection, test quality validation, completeness checks, 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。

Dispatches an expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Use when a roadmap, implementation, or step needs quality review before proceeding.

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。

Critique dimensions, severity framework, verdict decision matrix, and review output format for documentation assessment 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。

Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, 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。

Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, 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。

Review dimensions for acceptance test quality - happy path bias, GWT compliance, business language purity, coverage completeness, walking skeleton user-centricity, priority validation, observable behavior assertions, traceability coverage, and walking skeleton boundary proof

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。

Improve an explanation with a bounded critique-and-revision pass and unresolved-evidence notes. Use for this Bot Generator Bot template; creates drafts or simulations within its declared scope.

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 the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

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 full speckit workflow end-to-end — specify, plan, critique, tasks, implement, review — making all decisions autonomously. Stops before extract; run that manually.

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。

Perform a dual-lens critical review of the specification and plan from both product strategy and engineering risk perspectives before implementation.

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 speckit preparation phases end-to-end — specify, plan, critique, tasks — making all decisions autonomously. Stops before implementation.

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 for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Use this skill when reviewing a small set of changes locally (such as unstaged diff), when dispatched as a sub-task during feature-dev quality review, or when the user wants a critique of a specific file or function.

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 a high-confidence, CONCISE implementation / architecture / strategy PLAN that follows the OMC plan system end to end. It first runs OMC's real requirements interview (auto-chains the `omc-plan` skill: one question at a time, explore-first, Analyst consult) to produce an initial plan in `.omc/plans/`, then DEEPENS that plan with a 3-round ITERATIVE fusion loop — each round an Opus 4.8 panelist (Agent subagent) and a GPT-5.5 panelist (via codex) critique/improve it IN PARALLEL and BLIND, then Opus 4.8 (the orchestrator) judges and synthesizes one tighter plan that seeds the next round, stopping early on convergence. Writes the final dense plan back to the same `.omc/plans/<slug>.md`, then offers the OMC handoff (`/omc-plan --review` → `/team` or `/ralph`). Use for high-stakes planning, architecture decisions, strategy calls, and hard debugging — especially when the user runs /plan or asks how to approach a non-trivial build. Reuses the `fusion` skill's run_codex.sh + judge rubric. NOT for trivial tasks (single pass is enough).

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。

Constructive critique via 5 HackerNews personas with claim 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。

Assessment: read-only inspection, codebase overview, value analysis, health checks, ADR consultation, decision analysis, multi-perspective 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。

Review a plan by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Use when the user asks to "review my plan", "check my plan", "critique my plan", or wants feedback on a plan.

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 for social science academic paper drafting, outlining, diagnosis, review, and revision. Trigger for topic diagnosis, research question refinement, literature review planning, CNKI/Google Scholar literature search-to-Zotero workflows, structured paper reading notes, theoretical framework design, research design critique, draft review, section or paragraph revision, citation and evidence risk checking, causal-claim checking, and pre-submission review. Do not use for purely creative writing or non-academic editing.

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。

UX copy review across buttons, errors, empty states, and form hints — critiques by default, applies only on request. Use when copy feels vague, generic, or AI-sounding, or when the user says "fix the labels", "improve error messages", or "review the copy". Invoke when the user asks for clarify on their UI, or mentions 'clarify' alongside design / UI / frontend 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。

Produce a scored heuristic critique of the UI using Nielsen's 10 + 6 design laws + optional persona walkthroughs. Outputs a machine-parseable scorecard plus a 0-100 UsabilityScore (the judged companion to the deterministic UICraftScore). Invoke when the user asks for heuristic on their UI, or mentions 'heuristic' alongside design / UI / frontend 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。