「viewer」の検索結果

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。

Run an adversarial two-phase code review of a change with TWO independent reviewers — Claude and Codex — who review alone, then cross-examine each other's findings, then Claude synthesizes a single weighted verdict. Use when the user says "/adversarial-review", "adversarial review", "review this with Codex", "get Codex to review", "two-reviewer review", "cross-examine this PR", or wants a second independent model to grade a change before merge.

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。

Decision guide for delegating to caveman-style subagents. Tells the main thread WHEN to spawn `cavecrew-investigator` (locate code), `cavecrew-builder` (1-2 file edit), or `cavecrew-reviewer` (diff review) instead of doing the work inline or using vanilla `Explore`. Subagent output is caveman-compressed so the tool-result injected back into main context is ~60% smaller — main context lasts longer across long sessions. Trigger: "delegate to subagent", "use cavecrew", "spawn investigator/builder/reviewer", "save context", "compressed agent output".

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。

Assemble a finished piece from human-written fragments via an orchestrated two-loop pipeline - an assembly loop (assembler + cold reviewer) that sequences the fragments into a draft, then a polish loop (polisher + cold reviewer), then frequency analysis and a catalog-deslop pass with a regression gate. Two modes with opposite fidelity contracts - stitch mode preserves the author's exact wording, narrative mode preserves every idea but may rewrite freely. Use when the user says "mosaic", "assemble my fragments", "stitch these notes into a post", or provides a fragments file to turn into a finished piece. For writing from a topic with research, use article-factory; for prose from scratch, use the prose skill.

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。

Universal skill reviewer: SKILL mode (D1-D9 + M1-M5) or COMMAND mode (skill 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。

Worker-Reviewer iterative pipeline for quality-critical code with review cycles

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。

opus-reviewer(Opusモデル、read-only)にレビューさせ、各指摘を実コードで検証して修正/反証/受容/保留に仕分け、再レビューを反復する。未解決ゼロ・千日手・要ユーザー判断のいずれかで終了。Opusモデルでコードレビューを回したいときに使う。

fable-reviewer(Fableモデル、read-only)にレビューさせ、各指摘を実コードで検証して修正/反証/受容/保留に仕分け、再レビューを反復する。未解決ゼロ・千日手・要ユーザー判断のいずれかで終了。Fableモデルでコードレビューを回したいときに使う。

Use when the user asks for a multi-agent .NET code review - five parallel reviewers (correctness, performance, security/observability, data/messaging/integration, generalist) plus an adversarial maintainer that refutes weak findings. Requires the review agent roles registered by scripts/install-codex.sh. Keywords: dotnet review pipeline, multi-agent review, parallel reviewers, maintainer pushback, review this branch, cynical 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。

Review an author's manuscript, its argument and paragraph structure, analyze reviewer comments, draft rebuttals, and verify revisions. Use for self-review, structural edit plans, simulated reviewer objections, author responses, revision closure, and submission-readiness assessment. Formal assigned peer review is outside this skill; manuscript edits and final figures/tables use their owning skills.

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。

Convex code reviewer — security, auth, validators, performance, and pattern checks for code in a convex/ directory. Use to review or audit Convex functions before shipping.

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。

Convex code reviewer — security, auth, validators, performance, and pattern checks for code in a convex/ directory. Use to review or audit Convex functions before shipping.

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。

API Design 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。

Pre-tests one message (email, announcement, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or slide) against two to six role personas the user supplies and returns a DRAFT panel report: each persona's likely first reaction, objections, unanswered questions, misreadings and what they would do next, every point tied to the passage that triggers it, plus suggested edits that add no fact the message does not already hold. Use when the user asks to "pre-test this message", "how will the team read this", "run this past the personas", "what objections will this raise", "find the holes before I send" or "check this lands with managers and field staff". Do not use for an in-character review of a proposal or business case by one executive archetype, use the executive-review family (cfo-reviewer, frontline-skeptic-reviewer and siblings) instead; to write the message in the first place, use announcement-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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 one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Information Security Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, security and compliance risks and the five interrogation questions a real CISO would ask. Use when the user asks to "run a CISO review", "pressure-test the security of this plan", "what would our CISO say about this" or "check the privacy and third-party risk". Do not use for contract, liability or regulatory-interpretation reviews, use general-counsel-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Business Officer archetype, covering commercial model, partnerships, deal structure, market positioning, strategic fit and opportunity cost, and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, commercial risks and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CBO review", "pressure-test this partnership", "check the deal structure" or "what would a commercial executive say about this". Do not use for pipeline, quota, sales-motion or forecast reviews, use cro-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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 a proposal, business case, deck, plan or restructuring paper in character as a Chief Human Resources Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, people and organisation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CHRO review", "what would HR say about this", "pressure-test the people impact" or "prepare this for the people committee". Do not use for the employee representatives' own view of a plan, use works-council-reviewer instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

PRまたはremote branchのレビューに使う。ローカルの未コミット差分やファイル指定はreviewerへ渡す。

Cursorで任意のリファクタリング改善案を返すnative入口。共有refactor-advisorとrefactor-guidanceを読み、reviewerのVERDICTから分離する。

割り当てられたコード・設計・指示の対象を、指定された観点から実際に評価するための手順。担当配分・追加reviewer起動・結果の全体統合は行わない。

ISTQB/JSTQB のテストプロセス各工程の出口ゲートとして、工程成果物（test-plan.md / test-analysis.md / test-design.md / test-case.md / テスト実装 / test-execution-log.md / test-monitoring.md / test-summary-report.md）をレビューするスキル。決定論スクリプトの機械検査（トレーサビリティ ID 突合・テンプレ準拠）と test-reviewer サブエージェントの定性レビューを行い、利用者が通過/条件付き通過/差し戻しを判定して軽量記録 test-review-<工程>.md を残す。上流の仕様・基本設計（spec / design-doc 工程。docs/dev/<対象>/spec.md・basic-design.md）は機械検査と利用者判定のみの軽量ゲートとして扱う。各工程スキル（test-plan〜test-report / feature-spec / basic-design）が完了宣言の前に本スキルの実行を促す。ソースコード diff のレビュー（diff-review）とは別物で、対象はテストプロセスの成果物のみ。成果物の修正・代作はしない。/test-review <テスト対象名> [工程] で明示的に呼び出されたときのみ使用する。

Answer reviewers on your own pull requests in other people's repos: find threads where the ball is on your side, tell humans from bots, do exactly what was asked and reply with evidence. Use at the start of any GitHub session or on a new-review alert. Triggers: /pr-reply, /prr, answer the reviewers, who is waiting on us.

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。