「critique」の検索結果

Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, econometric specification, citation completeness, and potential referee objections. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants substantive academic feedback on a paper — not just surface edits. Triggers include: "review my paper", "give me feedback on this draft", "what would a referee say", "anticipate referee objections", "act as a referee", "check my identification strategy", "is my argument convincing", "review this manuscript", "critique my paper", "will this pass review", or any request for deep critique of academic writing beyond typos and grammar.

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。

LQF Machine Learning Expert Guide - Routed skill for ML/Statistical Modeling with Critical Discussion Mode. Triggers on: machine learning, modeling, prediction, training, classification, regression, clustering, deep learning, neural network, model evaluation, feature engineering, hyperparameter tuning, overfitting, underfitting, baseline, ablation study, critique my approach, review my model, is this a good idea, should I use, what's wrong with, evaluate my solution, challenge my assumptions, discuss my approach Engages in critical discussion with minimum 3 rounds of iterative refinement. Challenges both user proposals and own suggestions with fact-based critique. Demands evidence and baselines before accepting solutions.

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。

Critique a rendered screen's density — cognitive load, content prioritisation, scanning patterns, and progressive disclosure. Use when a screen feels overwhelming. For the underlying choice-count principle, use `hicks-law` (interaction-design).

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。

Critique a rendered screen's typography — scale usage, readability, consistency, and token compliance. Use when reviewing type on a screen. For defining the scale itself, use `typography-scale` (ui-design).

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。

Critique a rendered screen's colour — contrast ratios, palette coherence, and semantic meaning. Use when reviewing one screen. For a product-wide WCAG audit use `accessibility-audit` (design-systems); for building the palette use `color-system` (ui-design).

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。

Critique a rendered screen against mood.md, voice.md, and tokens.md. Use when those brand files exist and you are checking compliance. For defining the visual language itself, use `illustration-style` (ui-design).

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。

Critique a rendered screen's hierarchy — entry point, eye flow, weight distribution, and emphasis. Use when attention lands in the wrong place. For establishing hierarchy in new work, use `visual-hierarchy` (ui-design).

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。

Critique a rendered screen's affordances — what looks clickable, state visibility, CTA clarity, and action discoverability. Use when reviewing an existing screen. For sizing and positioning targets in new work, use `fitts-law` (interaction-design).

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。

Establish hierarchy through size, weight, colour, spacing, and position so the eye lands in the intended order. Use when composing new work. For judging an existing screen, use `critique-visual-hierarchy` (visual-critique).

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。

Create a modular type scale with size, weight, and line-height relationships. Use when establishing typographic structure. For line length only use `readable-measure`; for judging type on an existing screen use `critique-typography` (visual-critique).

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。

Facilitate a structured team critique — framing, feedback rules, and actionable outcomes. Use when running a session with people in the room. For a solo expert review, use `heuristic-evaluation` (prototyping-testing).

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。

A medical-research-native literature reading skill for users with clinical, bioinformatics, translational, and basic experimental backgrounds. Use this skill whenever a user wants to read, analyze, critique, or interpret a medical or scientific paper — whether they provide a PDF, abstract, DOI, PMID, or just a title. Triggers include requests like \"analyze this paper\", \"critique this study\", \"is this a strong paper?\", \"give me similar studies\", \"prepare me for journal club\", \"help me understand this bioinformatics paper\", \"what are the weaknesses here?\", or \"turn this into a mind map\". Also activate for any downstream deliverables such as journal club kits, comparison tables, PI decision briefs, replication starters, or follow-up experiment designs. Do NOT treat as a generic summarizer — this skill performs structured evidence-type classification, track-specific critical appraisal, interpretation-boundary judgment, and research-grade follow-up 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。

Adversarial design critique of the current work — render it, look at it, and argue for rejection. Run after the gates are green, never instead of them.

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 one independent Council critique against engagement-report research evidence. Use as the manual separate-session fallback when independent critic agents are unavailable.

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。

Break large features into independently verifiable, human-reviewable slices under a feature directory in specs/. Use for risky or multi-step feature work that needs upfront questioning, API seams, browser-playable checkpoints, HTML visualizations, screenshot gates, staged implementation plans, recursive fog-of-war reslicing, or proactive research into reference implementations/best practices before slicing. Pairs with your project's verification harness and screenshot gates (the browser checkpoints), [refactor-clean](../refactor-clean/SKILL.md) (review the materialized spec so the plan describes one-owner architecture, not the feature bolted on), [screenshot-critique](../../visual/screenshot-critique/SKILL.md) and [compare-screenshots](../../visual/compare-screenshots/SKILL.md) (the visual gates), and a code-review pass (audit each slice before it lands).

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。

Processes eDNA metabarcoding from raw paired-end reads to species tables, navigating ASV (DADA2, UNOISE3) vs OTU (swarm v2) decision (Callahan 2017 vs Schloss multi-copy-16S critique), marker/primer choice (Leray COI, MiFish 12S, 515F/806R 16S, ITS2) with primer-specific bias, OBITools3 v3 command-name break (obi stats plural; .tar.gz taxonomy), tag-jumping with dual-indexing (Schnell 2015; NovaSeq 10x MiSeq), decontam as screening-not-classifier (Davis 2018), read-counts-not-abundance critique (Lamb 2019), site-occupancy modeling (Ficetola 2015), Naive-Bayes calibration limits (Bokulich 2018), and eDNA decay (Strickler 2015). Use when going from raw eDNA FASTQ to species tables, picking marker + denoising pipeline, deciding whether read counts represent abundance, applying occupancy modeling, configuring OBITools3 v3, or interpreting decontam output. Not for clinical 16S microbiome (see microbiome/amplicon-processing).

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。

Rigorous multi-pass editor for law review articles, student notes, seminar papers and other legal scholarship. Runs six specialized passes — structure, substantive critique, Bluebook citations, grammar and clarity, fact-checking against sources, and a synthesizing memo — and delivers an editorial memo with issues prioritized as critical, substantial or minor and keyed to specific footnotes and paragraphs. Handles articles of any length, including 50,000-word pieces, by chunking on section boundaries. Reads .docx directly. Use when editing, critiquing, workshopping or pre-submission-reviewing academic legal writing. Triggers on "edit my article," "review this draft," "critique my note," "check my Bluebook citations," "is my argument sound," "read my law review piece," "workshop this paper," "pre-submission review." Chunking needs Python 3; fact-checking needs web search; both degrade gracefully without.

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。

Architecture quality critique dimensions for peer review. Load when performing architecture document 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。

Critique dimensions and scoring for research document 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。

Architecture quality critique dimensions for peer review. Load when invoking solution-architect-reviewer or performing self-review of architecture documents.

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。

Platform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs.

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。

Provider-independent governance workflow for verifying and correcting human- or model-generated video descriptions. Use for pre-caption critique and post-caption revision, aspect-by-aspect factual review, critique precision/recall/constructiveness, second-stage peer review, calibration, appeals, versioned triplets, provenance, and acceptance reporting; not for pixel/audio QA, accessibility captioning, model training, or creative shot direction.

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 Grok 4.5 as the required external design advisor when a task needs UI critique, UX critique, component-choice review, interaction-flow review, design imagery markdown, art direction, visual hierarchy judgment, design-system fit, color/type/layout suggestions, HTML mockups, SVG icons, handwritten SVG wordmarks, or file-based feedback on existing UI. Trigger on requests like "design a page", "generate design imagery", "give design advice", "optimize this UI", "improve UX", "optimize user flow", "review interaction", "check usability", "reduce friction", "choose the right component", "review this design", "create an icon", "suggest colors", "UI mockup", "visual direction", "lettering", "wordmark", "handwritten logo", or when another agent needs a second opinion on visual or interaction quality.

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。

Audit a design against Dieter Rams' ten "Good design is..." principles, then hand off a /make-plan prompt for one of three outcomes — new design, refine design, or redesign. Use when the user says "audit this design", "design review", "check this UI against Rams", "is this UI good", "critique this design", "design audit", or asks for a critique that should lead to a plan.

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。