53 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Prepares evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Supports authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.
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。
Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Use for authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.
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。
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。
Evaluates scientific claims and evidence quality. Applies to experimental design validity, biases and confounders, statistical interpretation, evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), and teaching critical analysis. Supports evidence appraisal and identifying flaws; formal peer review writing belongs to 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。
Run the Anti-Autoresearch integrity-forensics sweep (span-anchored evidence ledger → GPT auditors propose findings → a rules-only reporter that lists every proposal with what the auditor said about it) against a paper via a SHA-pinned thin launcher — then convert the verdict into a typed policy gate (BLOCK/WARN/NO_NEW_BLOCKER) and an append-only obligations ledger. Use when user says "integrity forensics", "forensic audit this paper", "投稿前自查诚信", "审这篇论文的诚信", or says "anti-autoresearch" when the upstream repo's own skills are not installed. Also invoked by /paper-writing (submission self-forensics, default ON), /peer-review (forensic appendix), /resubmit-pipeline.
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, audit, or revise point-by-point reviewer response letters for Nature-family manuscript revisions. Use when the user provides reviewer comments, editor decision letters, revision notes, response drafts, or asks how to respond to major/minor revision requests, rebuttal letters, response to reviewers, peer-review reports, 审稿意见回复, 逐点回复, 修回信, 大修回复, 小修回复, or 如何回复 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。
Chinese-first research paper writing, revision, polishing, section drafting, rebuttal, peer-review response, thesis prose improvement, and manuscript argument planning. Use when the user asks to write or revise论文正文, abstracts, introductions, methods, results, discussion, conclusions, related work, responses to reviewers, LaTeX/Overleaf text, or academic prose. Preserve formulas, English paper titles, terms, citations, and measured results.
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。
Systematic peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.
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。
STATA code pattern library for empirical archival accounting research. Provides tested syntax from 126 peer-reviewed JAR (Journal of Accounting Research) replication files (2017-2025). Use when the user asks procedural questions like "How do I implement [method]?" or "Show me code for [technique]" — including: entropy balancing, propensity score matching (PSM), difference-in-differences (DiD), regression discontinuity (RDD), instrumental variables (IV), event studies (CAR/BHAR), survival analysis, Fama-MacBeth regressions, bootstrap, quantile regression, reghdfe/xtreg/areg, clustering standard errors, fixed effects, esttab/outreg2 table formatting, winsorization, leads/lags. Users can specify their variables (e.g., treatment, outcomes, controls) and receive adapted syntax. NOTE: This skill provides code patterns from published papers, not research design advice.
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。
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use 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。
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
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。
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use 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。
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
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。
Reactome pathway enrichment using ReactomePA package. Use when analyzing gene lists against Reactome's curated peer-reviewed pathway database. Performs over-representation analysis and GSEA with visualization and pathway hierarchy exploration.
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 any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict. Based on Karpathy's LLM Council methodology. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'council this', 'run the council', 'war room this', 'pressure-test this', 'stress-test this', 'debate this'. STRONG TRIGGERS (use when combined with a real decision or tradeoff): 'should I X or Y', 'which option', 'what would you do', 'is this the right move', 'validate this', 'get multiple perspectives', 'I can't decide', 'I'm torn between'. Do NOT trigger on simple yes/no questions, factual lookups, or casual 'should I' without a meaningful tradeoff (e.g. 'should I use markdown' is not a council question). DO trigger when the user presents a genuine decision with stakes, multiple options, and context that suggests they want it pressure-tested from multiple angles.
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。
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use 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。
Conduct professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control.
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。
Assist in drafting professional peer review response letters. Trigger.
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。
Helps organize reviewer comments and generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter that maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line). Use when revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, or preparing internal review responses.
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 you need to understand or set expectations for the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) editorial and peer-review process — desk review, the developmental multi-round R&R culture, and reading a decision letter. Explains the process and how to read decisions; it does not draft the response letter (amj-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。
Structured peer review analysis and feedback generation
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。
Argentine Supreme Court citation network analysis using JurisRank — a peer-reviewed PageRank algorithm with temporal decay for measuring jurisprudential authority. Ranks precedents by citation influence, traces doctrinal evolution, and detects constitutional drift. Published methodology: JCLLT (DOI: 10.47852/bonviewJCLLT62027951). Activate with: which cases to cite, rank precedents, case authority, doctrinal evolution, Argentine Supreme Court, CSJN jurisprudence, citation network, leading case, legal research Argentina.
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。