「peer review」の検索結果

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Runs a 5-seat, role-separated review panel (Journal-Fit Reviewer + 3 peer-review roles + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise; role separation is not a claim of independent error processes. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy, 審查論文, 論文審查, 模擬審查, 同儕審查, 幫我審這篇, 以審查人角度評估, 審查者校準, 논문 심사, 동료 심사, 모의 심사, 심사자 관점에서 평가, 심사자 보정, revisar artículo, revisión entre pares, revisión de manuscrito, informe de árbitro, revisa mi artículo, criticar artículo, simular revisión, revisión editorial, calibrar revisor.

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. Runs a 5-seat, role-separated review panel (Journal-Fit Reviewer + 3 peer-review roles + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise; role separation is not a claim of independent error processes. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy, 審查論文, 論文審查, 模擬審查, 同儕審查, 幫我審這篇, 以審查人角度評估, 審查者校準, 논문 심사, 동료 심사, 모의 심사, 심사자 관점에서 평가, 심사자 보정.

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, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

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。

Simulate a Nature-style reviewer assessment from the referee perspective rather than an author rebuttal. Use when the user wants a pre-submission review, reviewer report, peer-review style critique, novelty/significance/technical soundness assessment, reviewer-style manuscript evaluation, 审稿人视角评估, 预审稿意见, or Nature reviewer report. Return 3 reviewer reports plus a cross-review synthesis, grounded only in the local Nature reviewer source basis. Also trigger on general pre-submission review requests during academic writing even without the word "Nature", such as getting a mock peer review for any journal, critiquing a draft as a reviewer would, assessing novelty/rigor before submission, and Chinese phrasings like 审稿人视角、模拟审稿、预审、帮我审一下论文、投稿前自审、审稿意见模拟、找论文问题.

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, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps and low-value tests by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to "review my code", "full code review", "review my changes", "check for bugs", "scan for bugs", "review correctness", "security audit", "find vulnerabilities", "review security", "check API usage", "verify against docs", "check for cross-file duplication", "review consistency", "check for code reuse", "review simplicity", "find untested code", "find redundant tests", or "review test coverage".

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。

Educator peer review management for Canvas LMS. Tracks completion rates, analyzes comment quality, flags problematic reviews, sends targeted reminders, and generates instructor-ready reports. Trigger phrases include "peer review status", "how are peer reviews going", "who hasn't reviewed", "review quality", or any peer review follow-up 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。

Run an independent peer review via Claude. Use when the user asks to "peer review", "peer review my code", "peer review my plan", "get a second opinion", or "independent 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。

Run an independent peer review via Codex. Use when the user asks to "peer review", "peer review my code", "peer review my plan", "get a second opinion", or "independent 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。

Simulate rigorous, fair peer review on a paper — in two modes. (A) Red-team YOUR OWN draft before submission to predict the reviews you'll get and get a fix list. (B) Review SOMEONE ELSE'S paper when you're an assigned reviewer or helping your advisor — produce a fair, venue-formatted, submission-ready review. Use whenever the user gives a paper (PDF, .tex, .md, arXiv link, or pasted text) and wants to predict reviews, find weaknesses before reviewers do, stress-test a submission, OR write a real review of another paper. Grounded in official NeurIPS/ICLR/ACL reviewer guidelines; every criticism pinned to a location, and checked against ACL's H1–H17 list of illegitimate critiques. 两种模式:审自己的稿(投稿前红队)/ 审别人的稿(当审稿人或帮导师),按会议官方标准评,绝不脑补、绝不发不正当批评。

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。

Self-review, audit, or verify CS/AI/ML paper drafts as a critical peer reviewer. Three-round review (evidence→argument→style) with Verification Status and debt tracking. Use when: reviewing a paper draft before submission, checking evidence compliance of claims, simulating peer reviewer feedback, verifying citation closure and evidence debts, performing cross-section consistency checks. Triggers on: 审修, self review, 自查, verification, revise, 修订, check draft, 审稿, evidence compliance, peer review, 论文审查, draft audit, 验证论文, 检查引用, cross-section 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。

Draft performance reviews, self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback in your own voice. Analyzes your contributions, emails, and meeting history via WorkIQ, then produces honest, impact-focused drafts using the STAR format. USE FOR: write my performance review, draft self-assessment, peer review, 360 feedback, annual review, mid-year review, upward feedback, write review for colleague, performance appraisal.

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 manuscript review with three modes: single-pass (default), --adversarial critic-fixer loop, and --peer [journal] simulated peer-review pipeline (editor + 2 dispositioned referees + editorial decision, calibrated to a target journal). R&R continuation via --peer --r2/--r3; hostile-editor stress test via --peer --stress; reviewer-disposition variance reporting via --peer --variance N. Auto-invokes /review-r + /audit-reproducibility on referenced scripts unless --no-cross-artifact.

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 explaining or planning around AISTATS peer review, OpenReview review release, author-reviewer discussion, reviewer volunteer expectations, reviewer confidentiality, decision criteria, meta-review dynamics, the statistician-heavy reviewer pool, and PMLR proceedings outcomes.

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。

Produces a deep, honest peer-review of how someone uses Claude Code by statistically analyzing their local session data (~/.claude/usage-data/ and ~/.claude/projects/). Trigger whenever the user asks to review, analyze, audit, or critique their own Claude Code usage, workflow, habits, or skill level — including phrases like "analyze my cc usage", "review my cc sessions", "peer review my cc workflow", "deeper than /insights", or any ask for an honest audit of their AI workflow. Also covers portfolio/hiring-manager framings (e.g. "portfolio for Anthropic/OpenAI/xAI"), but ALWAYS ask the user in Step 0 which version to build (self / hr / both) before running — never silently produce an HR report, because that version goes to outsiders and needs explicit privacy setup. The HTML report is laid out ledger-first for SELF (opening band, output/team/leak/trend ledgers, then peer review, 9-dim scoring, try-this-week, case study, claim-indexed evidence). The HR variant is a recruiter version v1: identity card, earned badges (threshold-based, earned-only), allowlist-filtered output ledger, one case study, and a methodology & scope disclosure — no scores, no peer-review memo, no charts.

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。

7-agent paper review system on Hermes Agent. 6 modes (full/re-review/quick/methodology-focus/guided/calibration). 5-panel review with editorial decision, revision roadmap, and calibration metrics. Uses delegate_task for each reviewer. Triggers: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, check revisions, calibrate reviewer, 審稿, 同儕審查, 論文審查.

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。

Drafts a DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。

Simulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback. Triggers when a user asks to "review my paper," "simulate peer review," or "give my paper a peer 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。

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。

Use when explaining or planning around AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review release, the double-blind rebuttal on preliminary reviews, area-chair discussion, the mixed game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewer pool, the public posting of reviews and decisions, and how acceptance criteria weigh the interaction contribution.

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。

Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated progression.

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。

Simulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback. Triggers when a user asks to "review my paper," "simulate peer review," or "give my paper a peer 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。

Research Coordinator v12.0 - Human-Centered Edition (Systematic Review Automation) Context-persistent platform with 24 specialized agents across 9 categories (A-G, I, X). Features: Human Checkpoints First, VS Methodology, Paradigm Detection, Systematic Review Automation. Supports quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods research, and systematic review automation. Language: English. Responds in Korean when user input is Korean. Triggers: research question, theoretical framework, hypothesis, literature review, meta-analysis, effect size, IRB, PRISMA, statistical analysis, sample size, bias, journal, peer review, conceptual framework, visualization, systematic review, qualitative, phenomenology, grounded theory, thematic analysis, mixed methods, interview, focus group, ethnography, action research, paper retrieval, AI screening, RAG builder, humanization, AI pattern detection

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。