「critique」の検索結果

Expert 5-dimension design critique — philosophical, scored, actionable. Use when asked to "critique this design", "expert review", "score my design", "how does this look", "is this good design", "design feedback", or "review this UI". Different from /form-audit (which is technical QA for consistency/compliance) — form-critique evaluates design as a craft object: philosophy, hierarchy, execution, function, and innovation each scored 0–10 with a punch list. Add "as a report" or "give me a visual report" to produce an HTML file with SVG radar chart, evidence cards, and Keep/Fix/Quick-wins action lists — useful for design reviews and stakeholder presentations instead of CLI output.

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。

Produces detailed law-school case briefs of United States judicial opinions in a fixed nine-section structure: memory jogger, facts, procedural history, judicial votes, holding, opinion-by-opinion analysis, five future-application hypotheticals, critique, and verified key quotations. Also builds vote tables, cross-case consistency tables, perspective-based critiques, and LaTeX in article, Beamer and casebook-chapter formats. Use whenever someone asks to brief a case, analyse or explain an opinion, summarise a decision for students, generate hypotheticals from a holding, critique a judgment, tabulate how justices voted, or convert case analysis to LaTeX. Triggers on "brief this case", "case brief", "explain the holding", "what did the court hold", "hypotheticals based on", "critique this opinion", "vote table", "Beamer presentation", "chapter brief", and on any reference to a judicial opinion or Supreme Court decision in a teaching context. Requires web search to verify quotations, votes and holdings.

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。

Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says "what's wrong with this UI", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation. Invoke when the user asks for critique on their UI, or mentions 'critique' alongside design / UI / frontend work.

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 design for usability, hierarchy, and accessibility. Use when the user says "critique this design", "review this screen", "what's wrong with this UI", "design feedback", "UX review", "how can I improve this", "review my mockup", "is this good UX", or shares a design and wants structured feedback - even if they don't explicitly say "design 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。

複数の視点でまとめた重要な意思決定の草案に、Codexによる外部批評を一度追加します。結論の弱点や見落とし、反対意見の扱いを確認するスキルです。

• 判断が難しい重要な草案の検討
• 草案にない失敗の可能性の確認
• 強い反対意見の見落としの確認

Choose, lay out, critique, and explain data visualizations. Use when the user asks what visualization fits a dataset or goal, how a chart, dashboard, operational workspace, UML-like diagram, or software architecture diagram should be composed or interacted with, asks for visual page design, a layout mockup, generated large-screen and mobile concept images, or to be shown what a visualization could look like, when domain-native contextual surfaces or graphical backgrounds may help, when scrollytelling or parallax might be appropriate, wants a critique of an existing visualization, or needs guidance grounded in trusted visualization theory and practice. For advanced visual design or page-layout prompts where composition affects understanding, Codex must generate and show both large-screen and mobile portrait image concepts before implementation or text-only design handoff, plus mobile landscape when needed.

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。

VS-Enhanced Theoretical Framework Architect with Critique & Visualization Full VS 5-Phase process: Modal theory avoidance, Long-tail exploration, differentiated framework presentation Absorbed A3 (Devil's Advocate) critique and A6 (Conceptual Framework Visualizer) capabilities Use when: building theoretical foundations, designing conceptual models, deriving hypotheses, critiquing frameworks, visualizing models Triggers: theoretical framework, 이론적 프레임워크, conceptual model, 개념적 모형, hypothesis derivation, critique, devil's advocate, 반론, visualization, diagram

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 composition — balance, whitespace, rhythm, and gestalt grouping. Use when a layout feels off but hierarchy is fine. For emphasis and eye flow specifically, use `critique-visual-hierarchy`.

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。

Self-critique specification documents using extended thinking — surfaces hidden assumptions, contradictions, missing edge cases, and scope creep before implementation

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。

Aesthetic assessment and design scoring across 6 dimensions. Use for UI critique, design review, visual quality assessment, remix suggestions. Activate on "design critique", "aesthetic review", "UI assessment", "visual quality", "design score", "remix this design". NOT for implementation (use frontend-developer), accessibility-only audits (use color-contrast-auditor), or brand identity creation.

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。

Aesthetic assessment and design scoring across 6 dimensions. Use for UI critique, design review, visual quality assessment, remix suggestions. Activate on "design critique", "aesthetic review", "UI assessment", "visual quality", "design score", "remix this design". NOT for implementation (use frontend-developer), accessibility-only audits (use color-contrast-auditor), or brand identity creation.

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。

Give a structured product design critique — user job clarity, hierarchy, affordance, error states, accessibility, and consistency — focused on what to change, in what order, and why.

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 a 5-dimension expert design review on any HTML artifact in the project — Philosophy / Visual hierarchy / Detail / Functionality / Innovation, each scored 0–10. Outputs a single self-contained HTML report with a radar chart, evidence-backed scores, and three lists: Keep / Fix / Quick-wins. Use when the brief asks for a "design review", "design critique", "5 维度评审", "design audit", or "what's wrong with my 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。

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。

Adversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', 'adversarial plan', 'hostile planning', 'cross-critique plan', '하이퍼플랜', '적대적 계획', '교차 비평'.

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 multi-agent planning: a hostile team cross-critiques a plan before it is formalized. Use when planning needs maximum rigor or the user asks for a hyperplan / adversarial or cross-critique 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。

Reviews and critiques blog posts in src/content/blog/posts/ against Appwrite's established standards for voice, tone, structure, SEO, formatting, and accuracy. Use when the user asks to review, audit, critique, or improve an existing blog post.

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。

Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team

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。

Anthropic's method for training harmless AI through self-improvement. Two-phase approach - supervised learning with self-critique/revision, then RLAIF (RL from AI Feedback). Use for safety alignment, reducing harmful outputs without human labels. Powers Claude's safety system.

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。

Get structured design feedback on usability, hierarchy, and consistency. Trigger with "review this design", "critique this mockup", "what do you think of this screen?", or when sharing a Figma link or screenshot for feedback at any stage from exploration to final polish.

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。

Anthropic's method for training harmless AI through self-improvement. Two-phase approach - supervised learning with self-critique/revision, then RLAIF (RL from AI Feedback). Use for safety alignment, reducing harmful outputs without human labels. Powers Claude's safety system.

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 or critique a product flow, journey, workflow, funnel, onboarding path, checkout path, settings path, screen, or multi-step product experience by capturing screenshots first, then reporting UX, design, and accessibility findings inline from that evidence. Use Figma only when the user explicitly asks for a board. Use when the user asks to audit, review, critique, inspect, assess, analyze, evaluate, or give feedback on a product experience.

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。

Internal prototype QA helper. Use only after a Product Design prototype, URL-to-code build, or image-to-code build has a source visual target and a rendered implementation to compare before handoff. Do not use for broad UX critique, design critique, product audits, or flow reviews; route those user-facing requests to audit.

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。

Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.

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。