Results for “reviews”

Rewrites and polishes prose in Chinese or English, removes AI-like wording, and reviews product localization copy while preserving intent for drafts, docs, release notes, launch copy, and social posts. Use when users ask in any language to draft, rewrite, proofread, localize, polish release notes, remove AI-like wording, or prepare launch and social copy. Not for code comments, commit messages, or inline docs.

Use this skill when the user requests to review, analyze, critique, or summarize academic papers, research articles, preprints, or scientific publications. Supports comprehensive structured reviews covering methodology assessment, contribution evaluation, literature positioning, and constructive feedback generation. Trigger on queries involving paper URLs, uploaded PDFs, arXiv links, or requests like "review this paper", "analyze this research", "summarize this study", or "write a peer review".

Processes a PR's review comments (Copilot or human), classifies them, applies the fixes that belong, replies to each thread, and pushes. Use whenever the user says "address the review", "fix what Copilot said", "handle the comments", mentions Copilot already reviewed a PR, or passes a PR number/URL with pending reviews — or in Spanish "revisá los comentarios", "arreglá lo que dijo Copilot", "atendé el review".

Reviews animation and motion code against a high craft bar derived from Emil Kowalski's design engineering philosophy (see `emil-design-eng`). Default to flagging; approval is earned. Use when reviewing a diff for motion quality — not for writing features, fixing unrelated bugs, or general (non-motion) code review. For building an animation from scratch, use `animate`; for a whole-codebase audit, use `improve-animations`. Source: github.com/emilkowalski/skills.

Expert economics paper writing assistant synthesizing advice from 50+ top guides by Cochrane, McCloskey, Shapiro, Head, Bellemare, Goldin, Glaeser, Kremer, and other leading economists. USE THIS SKILL whenever the user writes, edits, reviews, rewrites, or structures any economics paper, thesis, job market paper, abstract, introduction, conclusion, results section, literature review, or referee response. Also handles LaTeX formatting, presentations, and paper audits. Covers all paper types (applied, theory, structural, mixed) and all sections.

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes — Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/PRD asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

Reviews pull requests and local diffs against Google's eng-practices code review guide (design, complexity, tests, naming, comments, style, consistency, documentation, every-line, context) and emits a ranked, principle-tagged finding list with rich local diff rendering. Optional follow-up step posts selected findings as a GitHub PR review. Invoke when the user says "googly-eyes this PR", "review by the canon", "principled code review", "Google-style review", "review this CL", or pastes a PR URL and asks for a code review. 👀

Reviews a pull request: runs its own baseline review of the PR diff, then a persistent Monitor watches CI and incoming reviewer comments, triages each comment through an independent skeptical agent, applies only verified fixes, and commits+pushes via inline git commands until CI passes and no comments remain to adopt — then asks whether to merge. Use this skill when the user asks to "review a PR", "monitor PR review comments", "address reviewer feedback on #123", or "watch CI on a pull request".

Hard readiness gate before implementation begins — cross-checks the constitution, feature spec, plan, and tasks for consistency, traceability, and unresolved ambiguity. Returns PASS or FAIL with specific findings. Load when the spec-driven-development orchestrator routes /analyze, when the user asks to cross-check spec vs plan, audit traceability, verify spec readiness, gate-check before implementation, or says "is this spec implementation-ready", "trace requirements to tasks", "/analyze", "spec sanity check", "spec readiness gate", "spec consistency check". Output: docs/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-spec-crosscheck.md.

Senior Project Manager for enterprise software, SaaS, and digital transformation projects. Specializes in portfolio management, quantitative risk analysis, resource optimization, stakeholder alignment, and executive reporting. Uses advanced methodologies including EMV analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, WSJF prioritization, and multi-dimensional health scoring. Use when a user needs help with project plans, project status reports, risk assessments, resource allocation, project roadmaps, milestone tracking, team capacity planning, portfolio health reviews, program management, or executive-level project reporting — especially for enterprise-scale initiatives with multiple workstreams, complex dependencies, or multi-million dollar budgets.

Builds a new Claude Code skill from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the skill's design tree decision-by-decision — entity fit, use cases, name, description, workflow steps, tools, and progressive-disclosure layout — then reviews the finished skill against the plugin-building guidance and applies every fix it finds. Use when creating, authoring, scaffolding, designing, or drafting a new skill or slash command. Does not build an agent or subagent — use agent-builder. Does not serve, vendor, or refresh the authoring guidance itself — use guidance.

21-rule prose review workflow for technical and academic Markdown/LaTeX excerpts. Use when the user asks for muxing-style-review, wants a complete agent-style check combining check-human.md with agent-style audit-only evidence, wants a compact-rule check, wants a DeepSeek/Codex manuscript draft checked for clarity, evidence, citation discipline, terminology, AI-tell prose, or wants an A/B draft comparison. Prefer a dedicated review subagent when available for non-trivial reviews. Use the sibling style-review skill for the upstream post-hoc audit/polish workflow.

Builds a new Claude Code agent (subagent) from scratch through a relentless, evidence-based interview that walks the agent's design tree decision-by-decision — entity fit, domain focus and vocabulary, role identity, anti-patterns, description, model tier, tools, and self-containment — then reviews the finished agent against the plugin-building guidance and applies every fix it finds. Use when creating, authoring, scaffolding, designing, or drafting a new agent or subagent. Does not build a skill or slash command — use skill-builder. Does not serve, vendor, or refresh the authoring guidance itself — use guidance.

Expert guidance for FedRAMP certification and compliance. Use this skill whenever a user asks about FedRAMP authorization, ATO (Authority to Operate), cloud security for federal government, NIST SP 800-53 controls, CSP compliance, or any of the core FedRAMP document types: SSP, SAP, SAR, POA&M, CIS/CRM workbooks. Also trigger for questions about FedRAMP impact levels (Low, Moderate, High, LI-SaaS), FedRAMP 20x, OSCAL, 3PAO assessments, continuous monitoring (ConMon), gap assessments, system boundary definition, FedRAMP readiness, or architecture reviews for federal cloud. When in doubt, use this skill — it covers the full FedRAMP lifecycle from readiness through continuous monitoring.

Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out. Use when asked to "auto review", "autoplan", "run all reviews", "review this plan automatically", or "make the decisions for me". Proactively suggest when the user has a plan file and wants to run the full review gauntlet without answering 15-30 intermediate questions. (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "auto plan", "automatic review".

Run the full autonomous shipping pipeline end-to-end, hands-off with no check-ins: plan, implement, review and fix, commit, push a branch, open a PR, and watch CI to green. Use only when the user explicitly asks to build or ship something autonomously all the way to an open PR, or invokes lfg directly — it pushes and opens a PR without stopping. Not for in-the-loop work where the user reviews each step: use ce-plan to plan, ce-work to implement a plan, ce-debug to fix a bug, or ce-commit-push-pr to commit and open a PR for existing changes.

>- Run automatic SPICE simulations on subcircuits detected from KiCad schematic analysis — validates filter frequencies, divider ratios, opamp gains, LC resonance, and crystal load capacitance. Supports ngspice, LTspice, and Xyce (auto-detected). Generates testbenches, runs batch mode, produces structured pass/warn/fail report. Use when the user asks to simulate, verify, or validate any analog subcircuit — RC filters, LC filters, voltage dividers, opamp circuits, crystal oscillators. Also for "simulate my circuit", "run spice", "verify with simulation", "check my filter cutoff", "does this divider give the right voltage", "what's the bandwidth of this opamp stage". Consider suggesting simulation during design reviews when the schematic analyzer reports simulatable subcircuits and a SPICE simulator is available.

Expert SOC 2 compliance assistant covering all five Trust Services Criteria (Security/CC, Availability/A, Confidentiality/C, Processing Integrity/PI, Privacy/P). Use this skill whenever a user mentions SOC 2, Trust Services Criteria, SOC 2 Type 1 or Type 2, audit readiness, compliance gaps, control documentation, evidence collection, vendor risk questionnaires, or anything related to AICPA service organization controls. Trigger even for adjacent topics like "we need to get audited", "a customer asked for our security report", "writing an information security policy", or "preparing for an audit". Covers gap analysis, policy writing, control documentation, audit evidence preparation, and vendor risk reviews for organizations at any maturity level — from first-time startups to seasoned compliance teams.

Watch one or more GitHub repositories for new issues, pull requests, comments, PR reviews, and inline diff comments — emits a fresh turn each time something actionable happens. Use when you've opened PRs / issues mimir should know about review activity for, when you want operator-actionable signals for repos mimir maintains, or when you need to track upstream activity on a watched repo. Filters out events authored by mimir's own GitHub identity (set ``MIMIR_GITHUB_SELF_LOGIN``) so the bot doesn't wake itself with its own comments. Companion to the ``pollers`` framework skill (mechanics) and the ``world-scanning`` skill (catalog of *what's worth polling*). Opt-in: copy this directory into ``<home>/skills/github-poller/`` then set the env vars below.

A Cursor Canvas is a live React app that the user can open beside the chat. You MUST use a canvas when the agent produces a standalone analytical artifact — quantitative analyses, billing investigations, security audits, architecture reviews, data-heavy content, timelines, charts, tables, interactive explorations, repeatable tools, or any response that benefits from visual layout. Especially prefer a canvas when presenting results from MCP tools (Datadog, Databricks, Linear, Sentry, Slack, etc.) where the data is the deliverable — render it in a rich canvas rather than dumping it into a markdown table or code block. If you catch yourself about to write a markdown table, stop and use a canvas instead. You MUST also read this skill whenever you create, edit, or debug any .canvas.tsx file.

Use when asked to fix, build, refactor, review, verify, or release software and the work is non-trivial — including delivering a change request (issue, ticket, or request) from intake through planning, gates, implementation, review, verified PR, and authorized post-merge release. neckbeard routes the change through framing, discovery, design, implementation, review, verification, delivery, and learning — choosing the smallest *safe* intervention, proving it at the real delivery boundary, and leaving an inspectable evidence ledger. For change-request / issue-to-PR work, conditionally loads a 9-phase journey with gates, delivery packet, and lifecycle integration. Composes specialist catalog skills rather than replacing them. Not a persona, not a '10x developer' prompt, not a LOC-minimizer. The journey is not loaded for plain fixes, refactors, or reviews that lack an issue/ticket trajectory.

>- Analyze KiCad projects and PDF schematics: schematics, PCB layouts, Gerbers, footprints, symbols, netlists, and design rules. Reviews designs for bugs, traces nets, cross-references schematic to PCB, extracts BOM data, checks DRC/ERC, DFM, power trees, and regulator circuits. Every finding carries a confidence label and evidence source with trust_summary rollup. Analyzes PDF schematics from dev boards, reference designs, eval kits, and datasheets. Supports KiCad 5–10. Use whenever the user mentions .kicad_sch, .kicad_pcb, .kicad_pro, PCB design review, schematic analysis, PDF schematics, reference designs, Gerber files, DRC/ERC, netlist issues, BOM extraction, signal tracing, power budget, DFM, or wants to understand, debug, compare, or review any hardware design. Also for "check my board", "review before fab", "what's wrong with my schematic", "is this ready to order", "check my...

Drafts and revises academic papers through a 12-agent pipeline with hardened LaTeX output (apa7 document class, justified text, table column-width formula, centered bilingual abstracts, standardized font stack, PDF compiled from LaTeX), supporting IMRaD, literature review, theoretical, case study, policy brief, and conference paper structures, APA 7.0 (default), Chicago, MLA, IEEE, and Vancouver citation formats, bilingual zh-TW plus EN abstracts, and multi-format output (LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, Markdown). Use when the request mentions write paper, academic paper, paper outline, write abstract, revise paper, check citations, convert to LaTeX, guide my paper, parse reviews, revision roadmap, or 寫論文, 學術論文, 論文大綱, 寫摘要, 修改論文, 檢查引用, 引導我寫論文, 帶我規劃論文, 逐章規劃, 論文架構, 審查意見, 修訂路線圖. Its citation-check mode formats and inserts citations while drafting; for a standalone anti-hallucination check that cited references actually exist prefer alterlab-citation-verifier instead. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

Reviews a product document (PRD, spec, design brief) BEFORE implementation to surface holes — undefined edge cases, missing states, policy gaps — by attacking what the document is SILENT about (things unwritten, and things written only for the happy path). Acts as a strict "sign-off manager," ruling Approve / Conditional / Reject and producing a polite, forwardable question list. Works for planners/PMs (self-review before sharing), engineers (blocking questions before coding), and designers (screen states with no mockup). Use whenever the user wants a spec/PRD/plan/brief checked for readiness or gaps, or says "review this spec", "find holes in this PRD", "poke holes in this", "is this plan good to build?", "can I start implementing this?", "what states/edge cases am I missing?", "what should I ask the PM before coding?", "run devil", or pastes/links a planning document and asks whether it's ready to act on. Do NOT use it to: write or draft a new spec, summarize or translate a document, estimate/break down tic

Complete meeting lifecycle skill — preparation before and follow-up after any professional or personal meeting. Use this skill whenever the user mentions an upcoming meeting, wants to prepare for a meeting, needs an agenda, wants to brief themselves before talking to someone, needs to write up meeting notes, wants to send a follow-up email after a meeting, needs to capture action items, or says anything like "I have a meeting with...", "I just got out of a meeting", "help me prepare for...", "I need to follow up on...", or "what should I ask in this meeting." Also trigger for specific meeting types: job interviews, performance reviews, 1:1s, sales or client calls, and difficult conversations. Both modes are covered: PRE-meeting preparation and POST-meeting follow-up. Trigger proactively even when the user doesn't use the word "meeting" — if they describe a situation where they're about to talk to someone important, or just finished such a conversation and need to capture it, this skill applies.