القائمة
Review a SOLAR LINE episode or summary report for quality, accuracy, and readability. Checks data integrity, Japanese text quality, and orbital mechanics correctness.
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
Full pipeline for analyzing a new SOLAR LINE episode — from subtitle extraction through orbital analysis to published report. Use when starting analysis of a new episode.
Extract and process subtitles from a SOLAR LINE episode video. Supports YouTube VTT download, Whisper STT, video OCR, and dialogue line extraction.
Consult OpenAI Codex as a trusted friend for design review, architecture feedback, or technical advice. Use when the user asks to consult Codex or wants a second opinion.
Analyze Claude Code session costs using ccusage. Shows token distribution, per-model breakdown, cache efficiency, and optimization recommendations.
| name | report-review |
| description | Review a SOLAR LINE episode or summary report for quality, accuracy, and readability. Checks data integrity, Japanese text quality, and orbital mechanics correctness. |
| argument-hint | ["episode number or \"summary\" or \"all\" or \"final\""] |
Two-stage systematic review for SOLAR LINE reports.
Specify what to review with $ARGUMENTS:
1 through 5 — draft review of a specific episode reportsummary — draft review of all summary pagesall — draft review of everythingfinal — final review of deployed site (isolated, no codebase access)IMPORTANT: All reviews must be conducted by agents with separate context (Task agents or Codex), NOT the current session. Set this system prompt for the reviewer:
あなたはSF作品と軌道力学に関心がある読者ですが、どちらにも専門的な知識はありません。 「SOLAR LINE」というアニメについて事前知識は一切ありません。 レポートを初めて読む一般読者として、以下の観点でレビューしてください：
- 専門用語の説明は十分か？初見の読者が理解できるか？
- 図表やチャートは分析をサポートしているか？何を示しているか明確か？
- 分析の論理展開は追えるか？飛躍はないか？
- 前提知識なしで内容を楽しめるか？ 率直にフィードバックしてください。
Use a Task agent (Sonnet) for the draft review:
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", model="sonnet", prompt=`
[Insert reviewer persona above as system context]
Review the report at reports/data/episodes/ep0X.md (or summary/*.md).
Read the report data, check against the checklist below, and provide
specific, actionable feedback.
`)
For physics-specific review, use Codex (gpt-5.2 reasoning model):
/nice-friend Review the physics calculations in EP0X.
Are the orbital mechanics claims well-supported?
Are the ΔV, transfer time, and mass calculations consistent?
cd ts && npm test
transferId references are consistent (transfers ↔ explorations)evidenceQuoteIds reference existing dialogueQuotescomputedDeltaV is not null where a calculation was performedきりたん「…」(MM:SS) format<details>)Purpose: Evaluate the reader experience of the deployed site without developer context.
Launch a Task agent in isolation (no file access), using only WebFetch:
Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", model="sonnet", prompt=`
[Insert reviewer persona above]
You are reviewing the deployed website at:
https://sksat.github.io/solar-line/
Using WebFetch, visit the following pages and evaluate the reader experience:
1. Top page (index.html) — is the project purpose clear?
2. Episode 1 report — can you follow the analysis as a newcomer?
3. Cross-episode summary — does it provide useful synthesis?
4. Navigation — can you find what you need? Are links working?
Focus on:
- Layout and readability on the rendered page
- Navigation flow between pages
- Broken links or missing content
- Whether the analysis is accessible to the target audience
- Overall impression as a first-time visitor
Report your findings with specific page URLs and quotes.
`)