959 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Nature-style chemistry manuscript reviewer skill for testing synthesis, catalysis, chemical biology, molecular/materials chemistry and analytical claims against identity, purity, controls, selectivity, mechanism, scope, reproducibility and quantitative comparison.
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 engineering manuscript reviewer skill for testing devices, robots, platforms, systems, algorithms embodied in physical systems and engineering methods against requirements, validation, benchmarking, uncertainty, robustness and failure modes.
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 climate and ecology manuscript reviewer skill for testing biodiversity, ecosystem-function, carbon-cycle, conservation, global-change and ecological-inference claims against sampling, causal design, model structure, uncertainty and management scope.
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。
Nature-style remote-sensing manuscript reviewer skill for evaluating Earth-observation products, retrievals, machine-learning maps, validation design, uncertainty propagation, spatial transferability and claim-scope calibration.
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。
AI-PLCの Registry ビューア（ブラウザで Project 一覧・詳細・食い違い・起動プロンプトを見る）を起動・停止する。「Registryビューア開いて」「AI-PLCのプロジェクトを画面で見たい」で使う。experimental/registry-viewer を手でコピーしたときだけ使える。
AI-PLC Registry ビューア（ブラウザ）の起動・停止。experimental/registry-viewer を手でコピーしたときだけ使える。
Drive a GitHub Copilot (or any bot reviewer) pull-request review to a clean pass without babysitting it: fix each finding in its own commit, reply to the review thread with the fix sha, resolve the thread, re-request the bot, and poll for the async re-review. Covers the thread node-id (PRRT_...) vs comment databaseId distinction, the resolveReviewThread GraphQL mutation, the copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot] slug, and how to read the bot's verdict (COMMENTED plus a "human review recommended" banner is not a blocking finding). Use when Copilot has left review comments on your PR, when bot review threads must be closed out with an auditable fix-reply-resolve trail before merge, or when you need to verify that a re-review actually landed on the new HEAD rather than the old one.
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 for a code review by a fleet of specialized reviewer agents, wants multiple independent reviewer perspectives, or asks to run reviewers in single-pass or iterative fix-until-clean mode. Launches focused subagents for correctness, security, architecture, conventions, simplicity, UX, reliability, telemetry, testing, compatibility, and documentation 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。
Before committing any non-trivial change, dispatch the diff to a reviewer runtime via ATO (`ato dispatch <reviewer> --session <id>`), parse the numbered/severity-tagged findings, apply or defer each one with a recorded justification, then commit. Fights the "build passes therefore ship it" failure mode — what Garry Tan calls the AI agent complexity ratchet. Place in the v2.16 stack: this skill is the LAST gate. `ato-warroom` decides the design; `ato-mission` runs the multi-step work and produces the diff; `ato-review` checks the diff before commit. When the review is part of a Mission, dispatch the review with `--require-tools read_file,grep,git_diff,git_log` so the reviewer can walk the source itself instead of reasoning from a paraphrase (PR-1.5 tool surface). Receipts land in `execution_logs` and the Mission narrative. Fires automatically before commits touching public surface (CLI subcommands, Tauri commands, MCP tools, schema migrations, security boundaries) or whenever a diff exceeds ~50 LOC of behavior change.
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 recording, tallying, or triaging stochastic review findings — the append-only JSONL ledger where Tier 2 (advisory, unevidenced) reviewer output goes instead of blocking language. Triggers on "log this finding", "ledger add", "tally the findings", "triage findings", "is this finding recurring", "retire this noise", or whenever a reviewer produces an unevidenced concern that should be measured for recurrence rather than chased. For the review itself see code-review-and-quality or skill-library-review; for verifying formal claims with deterministic evidence see adversarial-claims-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。
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。
Read-only reviewer for agent-flow. Judges one diff against the acceptance criteria, AGENTS.md rules, protected paths and risk boundaries; returns a JSON verdict with line-anchored findings. Use when launched with AGENT_FLOW_ROLE=reviewer or asked for an agent-flow review of a diff.
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。
Kontokonzept für den budgetierten Einsatz teurer oder knapper Modelle (Advisor, Reviewer, Spezialmodelle, Dauer-Worker) in längeren Agentenläufen. Beginnt mit einer gemeinsamen Aushandlung zwischen Nutzer und Modell über verfügbare Modelle, Rollen und Kontingente je Zeitfenster, führt ein Konto über jeden Einsatz, setzt vor jeder Eskalation ein Puzzleteil-Vorverfahren und erlaubt Anpassungen mitten im Lauf. Verwenden bei "Budget", "Kontingent", "Konto führen", "nur einmal pro Stunde", "Reviewer sparsam einsetzen", "Fable/Codex/Sol/Astra/Luna/Advisor nur begrenzt", "/budgetierung", und immer dann, wenn ein Operator-, Forschungs- oder Automationslauf mehrere Modelle mit unterschiedlichen Kosten kombinieren soll — auch wenn der Nutzer das Wort Budget nicht nennt, aber Einsatzgrenzen für Modelle vorgibt.
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。
Monitor PR review comments and automatically classify and address reviewer feedback including code changes, questions, and nits. Use when handling PR reviews, addressing reviewer comments, responding to code review feedback, or automating review resolution. Triggers on handle reviews, PR review, address feedback, reviewer comments, code review, review response.
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 Marketing Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific passages, marketing risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CMO review", "pressure-test the positioning", "what would a CMO say about this", "challenge the launch plan" or "check the messaging and audience". Do not use for price economics, margins or payback, use cfo-reviewer instead; for sales pipeline mechanics, use cro-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 Works Council Representative archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, employee-impact risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this as the works council would", "what would the works council say about this rollout", "prepare me for the staff council consultation", "find the employee-impact gaps in this plan" or "pressure-test this deck from the employee representative side". Do not use for people strategy, restructuring or HR policy, use chro-reviewer instead; for whether frontline staff will adopt or work around 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 Operating Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific sections, delivery and operational risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a COO review", "pressure-test the delivery plan", "what would our COO say about this", "check the timeline and capacity" or "find the execution gaps before the steering committee". Do not use for financial questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-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 Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-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 an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-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, pricing plan, go-to-market plan or forecast in character as a Chief Revenue Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to exact passages, revenue risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CRO review", "pressure-test the revenue plan", "what would sales leadership say about this" or "challenge this forecast". Do not use for partnership, deal-structure or market-positioning reviews, use cbo-reviewer instead; for the finance seat use cfo-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。
Cursorでレビュー親を実行するnative入口。共有reviewer Skillを読み、対象・担当配分・結果集約を親が行う。
Working playbook preloaded into the reviewer helper; the coach updates its Lessons after each round. Use only when acting as reviewer or coaching it. NOT for writing a verifier brief (use subagent-dispatch).
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。
7-agent paper review system on Hermes Agent. 6 modes (full/re-review/quick/methodology-focus/guided/calibration). 5-panel review with editorial decision, revision roadmap, and calibration metrics. Uses delegate_task for each reviewer. Triggers: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, check revisions, calibrate reviewer, 審稿, 同儕審查, 論文審查.
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。