メニュー
Use before delivering proposal, literature review, methodology, manuscript, report, grant, supervisor-facing, reviewer-facing, client-facing, or formal academic/professional drafts to run a two-pass self-review and revision loop using intrinsic writing-quality criteria before style and document-quality gates.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Design and review active learning implementation support for university teachers, including classroom activity structures, preparation workflow, student participation, assessment alignment, and AI-agent support points.
Turn dissertation evidence into an AI agent design specification for supporting active learning implementation, including user scenarios, functions, interaction flow, boundaries, failure modes, and design rationale.
Synthesize confirmed co-design, design-elicitation, prototype-feedback, or participant-generated design outputs into requirements, design principles, prototype changes, participant contribution maps, and design decision logs.
Design specifications for dissertation figures such as conceptual frameworks, concept-card/interview process diagrams, AI-agent workflow diagrams, adoption-condition models, and findings maps.
Maintain a lightweight dissertation research wiki with project memory, literature notes, methodology decisions, supervisor feedback, design rationale, and open questions.
Audit an AI agent prototype or design concept for usability, pedagogical fit, teacher feedback, active learning support, evidence quality, and next design iterations.
| name | academic-self-review-loop |
| description | Use before delivering proposal, literature review, methodology, manuscript, report, grant, supervisor-facing, reviewer-facing, client-facing, or formal academic/professional drafts to run a two-pass self-review and revision loop using intrinsic writing-quality criteria before style and document-quality gates. |
Use this skill after cognitive-frameworks and before uk-academic-writing-style, style-memory-and-revision-gate, and dissertation-document-quality-gate.
Use for formal or high-stakes prose:
Do not force a two-pass review for short chat answers, simple file notes, basic summaries, or maintenance reports unless the user asks for formal delivery.
Use research-wiki/WRITING_QUALITY_RUBRIC.md as the intrinsic writing-quality standard.
Do not use grade bands, journal acceptance, funding chance, or client approval as the writing-quality score. Those belong to project delivery or requirement gates.
Save or identify the current artifact:
Artifact:
Audience:
Section type:
Purpose:
Source status:
Known limitations / TO CONFIRM:
Read only the current artifact and the review question. Do not look at previous repair notes.
Find the top two or three concrete weaknesses using:
Avoid generic praise. Every finding must identify a specific weakness and revision action.
Revise the artifact to improve argument quality, not only wording.
Revision must do at least one of:
TO CONFIRM;Review the revised artifact without copying Pass 1 wording.
Record:
Second-pass judgement:
- Improved criteria:
- Remaining weakness:
- Source or evidence risks:
- Ready for next gate: yes / no / yes with TO CONFIRM
The loop passes only if:
TO CONFIRM.If these criteria are not met, repeat the loop or mark the draft as not ready.
Sequence for formal writing:
External reviewers, including Claude Code or another model, may be used as optional independent review. They do not replace this local self-review loop and must not be treated as evidence.