AI-powered adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector design for gene therapy including capsid engineering, promoter selection, and tropism optimization.
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 asks about finding the best, top, or recommended model for a task, wants to know what AI model to use, or wants to compare models by benchmark scores. Triggers on: "best model for X", "what model should I use for", "top models for [task]", "which model runs on my laptop/machine/device", "recommend a model for", "what LLM should I use for", "compare models for", "what's state of the art for", or any question about choosing an AI model for a specific use case. Always use this skill when the user wants model recommendations or comparisons, even if they don't explicitly mention HuggingFace or benchmarks.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Finds the best models for a task by querying official HF benchmark leaderboards, enriching results with model size data, filtering for what fits on the user's device, and returning a comparison table with benchmark scores.
Extract from the user's message:
If device is not mentioned, skip filtering entirely and return the highest-performing models regardless of size. If the task is genuinely ambiguous, ask one clarifying question.
When a device is specified, extract its available memory (unified RAM for Apple Silicon, VRAM for discrete GPUs) and apply:
Examples: 16GB → 8B fp16 / 32B Q4 — 24GB VRAM → 12B fp16 / 48B Q4 — 8GB → 4B fp16 / 16B Q4
Fetch the full list of official HF benchmarks:
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $(cat ~/.cache/huggingface/token)" \
"https://huggingface.co/api/datasets?filter=benchmark:official&limit=500" | jq '[.[] | {id, tags, description}]'
Read the returned list and select the datasets most relevant to the user's task — match on dataset id, tags, and description. Use your judgment; don't limit yourself to 2-3. Aim for comprehensive coverage: if 5 benchmarks clearly cover the task, use all 5.
For each selected benchmark dataset:
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $(cat ~/.cache/huggingface/token)" \
"https://huggingface.co/api/datasets/<namespace>/<repo>/leaderboard" | jq '[.[:15] | .[] | {rank, modelId, value, verified}]'
Collect model IDs and scores across all benchmarks. If a leaderboard returns an error (404, 401, etc.), skip it and note it in the output.
For the top 10-15 candidate model IDs, get model infos.
# REST API
curl -s -H "Authorization: Bearer $(cat ~/.cache/huggingface/token)" \
"https://huggingface.co/api/models/org/model1" | jq '{safetensors, tags, cardData}'
# CLI (hf-cli)
hf models info org/model1 --json | jq '{safetensors, tags, cardData}'
Extract from each response:
safetensors.total → convert to B (e.g., 7_241_748_480 → "7.2B")license:apache-2.0, license:mit, etc.)safetensors is absent, parse size from the model name (look for "7b", "8b", "13b", "70b", "72b", etc.)If a device was specified:
If no device was mentioned: skip all size filtering — just rank by benchmark score.
Then: rank by benchmark score (descending), keep top 5-8 models.
Include proprietary models (GPT-4, Claude, Gemini) if they appear on leaderboards, but flag them as "API only / not self-hostable". If the user explicitly asked for local/open models only, exclude them.
| # | Model | Params | [Benchmark 1] | [Benchmark 2] | License | On device |
|---|-------|--------|--------------|--------------|---------|-----------|
| ⭐1 | [org/name](https://huggingface.co/org/name) | 7B | 85.2% | — | Apache 2.0 | Yes (fp16) |
| 2 | [org/name](https://huggingface.co/org/name) | 13B | 83.1% | 71.5% | MIT | Q4 only |
| 3 | [org/name](https://huggingface.co/org/name) | 70B | 90.0% | 81.0% | Llama | Too large |
https://huggingface.co/<model_id>— for benchmarks where the model wasn't evaluatedYes (fp16), Q4 only, Too large, API onlyAfter presenting the table, ask the user: "Would you like to run [top recommended model]?"
If they say yes, ask whether they'd prefer to:
hub_repo_search with filters=["<task>"] sorted by trendingScorehub_repo_search for popular models tagged with the task, note that results are by popularity rather than benchmark scoreThis skill is written to stay usable across GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, and Codex.
$CODEX_HOME/skills/huggingface-best and restart Codex after major changes.Preferred MCP Server: None required
huggingface-best outside its documented task boundary.Before claiming the huggingface-best workflow succeeded:
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
AI-powered adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector design for gene therapy including capsid engineering, promoter selection, and tropism optimization.
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 the clarity and voice of AI-assisted academic writing (papers, theses, rebuttals) and
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。
12-agent academic paper writing pipeline. 11 modes (full/plan/outline/revision/revision-coach/abstract/lit-review/format-convert/citation-check/disclosure/rebuttal-audit). 6 paper types, 5 citation formats, bilingual abstracts, LaTeX/DOCX-via-Pandoc/PDF output. Style Calibration + Writing Quality Check + Anti-Patterns with IRON RULE markers. Triggers: write paper, academic paper, guide my paper, parse reviews, audit my rebuttal, check my response draft, AI disclosure, 寫論文, 學術論文, 引導我寫論文, 審查意見, 評估回覆, 논문 작성, 초록 작성, 논문 수정, 논문 계획을 도와줘, 심사 의견 반영, 답변서 점검, AI 사용 고지.
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 writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like 'write the paper from this outline,' 'compose the full manuscript,' 'execute the outline,' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality checks.
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。
Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints.
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。