「reviewer」の検索結果

5つの専門エージェント（backend-reviewer, frontend-reviewer, test-reviewer, security-reviewer, ux-reviewer）がチームでコードレビューするスキル。 git diff ベースで変更ファイルを検出し、各専門家が並列でレビューして 統合レポート（Markdown）を docs/reviews/ に出力する。 Use when: コードレビューしたい、変更をレビュー、レビューチーム、 チームレビュー、実装をチェック、品質チェック。 Triggers: "レビュー", "review", "コードレビュー", "code review", "チームレビュー", "team review", "変更をチェック", "品質チェック"

Uncorrelated Evaluator — 4軸ルーブリック専門エージェント（functionality-reviewer・code-reviewer・design-reviewer・originality-reviewer）と security-reviewer を5並列実行し、成果物を多面的に独立評価します。PASS / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED 判定を返します。Self-leniency 防止のため、実装エージェントのコンテキストを引き継がない新規エージェントとして起動します。「レビューして」「評価して」「実装を確認して」などのリクエストで起動します。

Trustpilot customer reviews scraper for any company listed on trustpilot.com — given a company domain (e.g. shopify.com, apple.com, shopwagandtail.com) plus optional filters (page number, single star rating 1-5, single language ISO code, verified-only flag, has-company-reply flag, date period last30days/last3months/last6months/last12months, free-text keyword search, and reviewer countryCode client-side filter), extracts paginated reviews with 20+ fields per review: reviewId, reviewUrl, reviewTitle, reviewDescription, reviewRatingScore (1-5), reviewDate (ISO publishedDate), reviewDateOfExperience, reviewLabel, isReviewVerified, reviewer (display name), reviewerId, reviewersCountry (ISO Alpha-2), reviewLanguage, reviewCompanyResponse (the company reply text), plus pagination metadata (currentPage, totalPages, totalCount). Optional flags add reviewer profile metadata (reviewerNumberOfReviews, reviewerProfileIsVerified), reply analysis dates (companyReplyPublishedDate, companyReplyUpdatedDate), extended metadata (reviewSource, reviewVerificationSource, reviewLikes), and review photos. Use when user mentions Trustpilot reviews, scrape Trustpilot, get reviews from Trustpilot, Trustpilot review scraper, Trustpilot customer reviews, extract Trustpilot reviews, Trustpilot review data, download Trustpilot reviews, paginate Trustpilot, paginated Trustpilot reviews, filter Trustpilot reviews by star, filter Trustpilot by language, verified reviews Trustpilot, has reply Trustpilot, company response Trustpilot, Trustpilot reply analysis, brand monitoring Trustpilot, sentiment analysis Trustpilot, competitor reviews Trustpilot, bulk reviews from a Trustpilot page, batch download reviews, trustpilot.com reviews scraping, fake review research Trustpilot, Trustpilot dataset, persona research from Trustpilot reviews, Trustpilot keyword search reviews, Trustpilot date range reviews, review export Trustpilot. Also applies to comparing review trends across competitors, training data for LLM sentiment classifiers, monitoring competitor response time, exporting reviews for BI dashboards, lead generation from active reviewers, ML / fake-review detection, and aggregator sites that display third-party 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。

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。

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. 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。

Trigger: reviewer transport, advisory transport, review adapter, lens prompt/schema, OpenCode reviewer plugin, Codex reviewer, ReviewProviderContract. Enforce the shared Go advisory reviewer transport contract.

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。

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。

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。

Use when the user wants to anticipate reviewer questions, select the strongest ablations to present, prepare rebuttals, or identify paper weaknesses before submission. Triggers on phrases like "reviewer questions", "anticipate reviewers", "rebuttal", "paper weaknesses", "defend the paper", or "strengthen the 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。

原始人スタイル subagent への委譲判断ガイド。`genshijin-investigator` (コード位置特定)、 `genshijin-builder` (1-2ファイル編集)、`genshijin-reviewer` (diff レビュー) を inline作業 or vanilla `Explore` の代わりにスポーンするタイミングを示す。subagent 出力は原始人圧縮 → 主コンテキストに戻る tool-result が約60%縮小 → 長セッション持続。 Trigger: 「subagent 委譲」「genshijin-crew 使用」「investigator/builder/reviewer 起動」「コンテキスト節約」「圧縮 agent 出力」。

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。

`.agent/agents/reviewer.md` を入口に、PR差分やローカル差分を日本語でレビューするスキル。ユーザーが「レビュー」「PR確認」「差分確認」「コードレビュー」「reviewer」「レビュー指摘に対応」などを依頼したときに使う。GitHubレビュー指摘の対応（分類・方針提示・Worker委譲・resolved化）も扱う。

Iterative manuscript improvement workflow where a reviewer agent critiques, an author agent revises, a verifier checks the revision, and the loop repeats until acceptance or a human-pause condition is reached. Use for virtual peer review, reviewer-author revision loops, rebuttal preparation, resubmission polishing, journal paper improvement, response-to-reviewers drafting, and deciding when additional data, experiments, theory, modeling, or author judgment is required before further revision.

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。

レビュー専用サブエージェント(fable-reviewer・opus-reviewer等)を起動する反復レビュー・ループが共有する起動契約と手順の正本。Agentツールでの同期起動、2ラウンド目以降の同一エージェント継続、レビュー指示文の追加要件、失敗の扱い、1ラウンドを回して結末を出すまでの流れを定義する。内部専用でユーザーが直接使うものではない。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. 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 product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-reviewer. 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 vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, use ciso-reviewer. 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 rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-reviewer. 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 Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. 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 Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. 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 Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. 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。