「viewer」の検索結果

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。

PR確認・PRレビューの依頼で、PRまたはremote branchの差分を取得しshared reviewerへ渡す。PR番号・URL・branchを扱い、ローカルの未コミット差分・ファイル指定はreviewerを使う。ユーザーが `/review-pr` と入力したら必ず使う。

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。

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 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, 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。

Run the full implement-review-fix loop using implementer and reviewer personas. Supports effort-based multi-reviewer scaling (1-5 reviewers) with automatic specialization selection. Includes memory-based feedback loop that learns from past review patterns. Loops until all reviewers find 0 issues of any severity.

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。

編集前後の文章やパッチから、変更箇所を比較できる画面とPNG・PDFを作るスキル。共有用URLや添付ファイルで、修正内容を具体的に伝えられます。

• 文章の変更箇所をURLで共有したいとき
• 差分をPNGやPDFで添付したいとき
• 修正確認用の高品質な資料作成

Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the 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。

Two-thread adversarial review: a fresh reviewer constructs the strongest 200-word rejection memo, then a second fresh reviewer defends the paper point-by-point and surfaces still-unresolved critical issues. Use when user says "kill argument", "adversarial review", "hostile review", "rebuttal preparation", "reviewer-2 simulation", or before submitting a theory paper that has already passed standard review rounds.

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。

Runs an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over any code target — a skill, plugin, module, or directory — using a reviewer the user names: any installed skill or agent. Keeps a cross-round findings ledger, escalates when fixes stop converging, and guards scope mechanically. Use when asked to 'improve this code until review passes', 'run an improvement loop with <reviewer>', or to iterate review-and-fix with a specific reviewer. For skills prefer the skill-improver entry; for a branch prefer pr-improver.

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。

This skill helps users extract structured video list data and comment data from YouTube using the BrowserAct API. The Agent should proactively apply this skill when users request searching for YouTube videos and their comments, analyzing viewer sentiment for a specific video topic, gathering audience feedback on AI or automation, extracting a list of top videos and their viewer reactions, compiling YouTube video data along with user opinions, retrieving competitor video titles and related audience discussions, monitoring public response to specific YouTube search keywords, summarizing comments from search results for market research, tracking viewer engagement metrics and replies for trending topics, collecting YouTube video URLs and author details alongside community discussions, or automating the extraction of YouTube comments without manual scraping.

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。

Validate screenshot and viewer HTML quality for PR evidence. Run this after adding or modifying images under .agents/evidence/pr/ or .agents/recordings/, or after generating a new viewer HTML file. Combines image quality checks (resolution, blankness, file size) with Playwright-based viewer rendering verification.

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。

omicsViewer visualizes ExpressionSet (or SummarizedExperiment) in an interactive way. The omicsViewer has a separate back- and front-end. In the back-end, users need to prepare an ExpressionSet that contains all the necessary information for the downstream data interpretation. Some extra requirements on the headers of phenotype data or feature data are imposed so that the provided information can be clearly recognized by the front-end, at the same time, keep a minimum modification on the existin

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, diagnose, and improve IEEE rebuttals, revision plans, cover letters, response letters, and point-by-point replies using routed reviewer-comment handling. Use when responding to IEEE reviewer or editor comments about novelty, scope, method, experiments, baselines, figures, tables, citations, writing, LaTeX formatting, limitations, compliance, technical correctness, or reviewer comments that appear generic, contradictory, unsupported, careless, or possibly AI-generated.

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 IEEE conference, journal, Transactions, Letters, or magazine manuscripts from a technical reviewer perspective using routed IEEE review gates. Use when evaluating scope fit, novelty, validity, data, clarity, compliance, advancement, engineering significance, method soundness, experiment sufficiency, baseline fairness, figure/table quality, formatting risks, rejection risk, major revision strategy, pre-submission readiness, or the quality and specificity of reviewer comments that may be generic, careless, contradictory, or possibly AI-generated.

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。

Address PR reviewer feedback by evaluating comments, proposing fixes, and executing after user approval. Use when the user wants to handle review comments on an existing PR, address PR feedback, fix PR comments, respond to reviewer suggestions, or process code review feedback. Triggers on "address PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR comments", "respond to PR review", "process reviewer feedback", or when given a PR number/URL with intent to address its comments.

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。

Ensure site/viewer/lib has correct symlinks to src/viewer/assets/lib

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 custom JavaScript viewer extending DG.JsViewer with properties and rendering

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。

Nature-style materials science manuscript reviewer skill for testing materials design, synthesis, processing, structure-property, mechanism, stability, scalability, computational prediction and application claims against materials evidence chains.

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。

Nature-style hydrology manuscript reviewer skill for testing streamflow, runoff, groundwater, water storage, drought, flood, hydroclimate and water-resource claims against water-balance closure, hydrologic signatures, model structure and observational constraints.

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。