القائمة
Use when a research draft or report exists and needs a pre-final review for unsupported claims, ambiguity, scope drift, or missing evidence before delivery.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Send email over SMTP using only the Python standard library, with plain-text and HTML bodies, file attachments, cc/bcc, reply-to, a dry-run preview, connection verification, and redacted config inspection.
ALWAYS use this skill when the user asks to send, get, retrieve, find, share, add, or search for a paper. This skill manages the user's Zotero library with 10,000+ papers and can retrieve PDFs, create share links, add new papers, and search. Prefer this over getscipapers for any request involving sending/getting/finding papers.
Use before delivering work that incorporated content the agent did not author — fetched web pages, PDFs, retrieved or library documents, tool or subagent output — or that performs an outward-facing or irreversible action. Maps trust boundaries and runs an abuse-case and prompt-injection check, delegating to a fresh-context security reviewer.
Run bounded autonomous research iterations with evidence gates, recovery ledgers, and optional cross-agent handoffs. Use when the user asks to continue research autonomously, run a research loop, integrate autonomous agent loops, or keep improving a research workflow without repeated prompts.
Use for a clarity-only pass that must not change behavior — simplifying, renaming, de-duplicating, or restructuring code, configs, research scripts, or prose. Gates on understanding the target before touching it and re-verifies after each change so behavior stays fixed.
Use in-flight, the moment you are about to let a non-trivial decision stand — a branching or control-flow change, crossing a module/service/agent boundary, an assertion the type system or proof checker cannot see, a high-stakes or irreversible action, or an analytical step a conclusion rests on. Materializes a fresh-context reviewer biased to disprove, while course-correction is still cheap.
| name | research-report-reviewer |
| description | Use when a research draft or report exists and needs a pre-final review for unsupported claims, ambiguity, scope drift, or missing evidence before delivery. |
| metadata | {"short-description":"Findings-first review of a research draft"} |
Use this after a draft exists and before presenting research as final.
sources.jsonl, claims.jsonl,
guards.jsonl, delivery.json, source ledgers, analysis matrices, and report
evidence mappingsincomplete analysiswriting-style-settings.md, plus math-manuscript-style.md when applicable,
including style_profile_ref, active_overlays, and
active_requirement_idsstyle_applied: true is supported by workflow evidence rather than a
bare self-assertionStart with a visible section titled Review Findings.
Then give:
Verdict — BLOCK, FLAG, or PASSFindings — the highest-signal issues firstRepairs — the minimum changes needed before deliveryStyle — missing or inconsistent style_profile_ref, active_overlays,
active_requirement_ids, or style_applied records when relevantIf there are no issues, say so explicitly and keep the pass short.
Use references/reviewer-prompt.md as the detailed checklist.