메뉴
Read-only correctness review with actionable findings first, tight file/line evidence, severity, and a concise residual-risk summary.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Structured code review for bugs, regressions, tests, and standards. Use before PRs or when asked for review; report-only by default, with explicit local apply available for user-directed fix workflows.
Document a recently solved problem as a durable repo learning, or capture project vocabulary in CONCEPTS.md. Use when capturing a learning after work.
Sweep configured feedback sources (Slack, GitHub Issues; email experimental) for new items: acknowledge at source, analyze recordings, verify fixes merged to main, and emit an `lfg`-ready plan. First run sets up sources; supports mode:headless for scheduled runs.
Generate a small set of independent candidate solutions, judge them against one explicit rubric, and return the strongest verified result.
Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy, 審查論文, 論文審查, 模擬審查, 同儕審查, 幫我審這篇, 以審查人角度評估, 審查者校準, 논문 심사, 동료 심사, 모의 심사, 심사자 관점에서 평가, 심사자 보정.
Exercise the real app/API/CLI and collect observable evidence; tests alone do not count as end-to-end verification.
| name | review |
| description | Read-only correctness review with actionable findings first, tight file/line evidence, severity, and a concise residual-risk summary. |
| invocation | model+user |
Use for correctness review of a diff, PR, or named change set.
