Results for “correctness”

Delegate writing predictable code to the `code-write` command, which has a cheaper writer model write the target file directly so the generated code never enters your context. Use for tests, scaffolding, fixtures, boilerplate, or a new file that copies an existing pattern, and when the user says "code write", "生成を委譲", or "雛形を書かせて". Do NOT use for design decisions, changes to public contracts or shared modules, edits inside an existing file that needs judgment, or logic with subtle correctness requirements.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Check your work with a verification subagent. Spawns a verifier that reviews diffs, runs builds and tests, and evaluates correctness. Use when asked to "check work", "verify changes", "self-verify", "/check", "/verify", "/check-work", or "/self-verify".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Perform a thorough code review focused on correctness, maintainability, performance, and best practices.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run four parallel read-only subagents that each review the same diff from a different lens — security, performance, correctness, and readability — then merge findings into one report. Use before merging large or risky PRs.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Orchestrates an end-to-end de novo genome assembly project, routing each step to the right genome-assembly skill rather than restating it. Profiles the genome first (k-mer spectrum -> size, heterozygosity, ploidy), QCs reads, chooses an assembly path by data type (SPAdes for Illumina, Flye for noisy long reads, hifiasm for HiFi, metaFlye for communities), polishes only when needed, decontaminates, scaffolds with Hi-C, and finishes with three-axis QC (contiguity + completeness + correctness). Use when assembling a genome from raw reads and deciding which assembler, whether to polish, and how to prove the result is good.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Code quality patterns and guidelines for ToolUniverse tool development. Apply when writing, fixing, or refactoring tool Python code in the ToolUniverse project. Encodes lessons from 80+ debug rounds. Use alongside devtu-fix-tool and devtu-self-evolve. Triggers: implementing tool fixes, writing new tool classes, reviewing tool code quality, checking schema correctness, looking up API-specific bug fixes.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when implementing a medium or large coding project from a written spec, plan, or product goal where drift, skipped validation, PR correctness, or multi-block delivery risk matter.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Review changes for correctness, security, accessibility, and performance. Use for scoped quality reviews or verification plans; bug fixes use oma-debug.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Perform a diff-scoped, behavior-neutral cleanup of AI-generated slop on the current branch before code review. Use for removing trivial comment, defensive-check, type-laundering, redundant-intermediate, compatibility-shim, or local style drift from the branch diff. Do not use for full correctness or safety review, documentation work handled by technical-documentation or docs-refactor, or repo-wide refactors.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Identifies non-coding RNAs (tRNA, rRNA, snoRNA, snRNA, riboswitches, sRNAs) using Infernal covariance-model search against Rfam, tRNAscan-SE 2.0 for tRNA, barrnap for rRNA, and ARAGORN for tmRNA, plus the small-RNA-seq boundary for miRNA and the transcript-assembly boundary for lncRNA. Covers the structure-conserved-not-sequence-conserved principle (why BLAST fails), GA-threshold and clan-competition correctness, tRNAscan-SE domain modes and pseudogene flags, rDNA copy-number collapse, and why homology annotation is a recall floor. Use when performing genome-wide ncRNA annotation, choosing the right tool for an RNA class, or interpreting ncRNA counts.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Evaluates genome assembly quality across the three orthogonal axes - contiguity (QUAST auN/NG50/NGx, not bare N50), completeness (BUSCO/compleasm gene-space plus Merqury k-mer completeness), and correctness (reference-free Merqury QV, Inspector/CRAQ structural errors, asmgene false-duplication/collapse). Covers why N50 is the most-gamed metric, why QV measured on the polishing reads is circular, distinguishing uncollapsed haplotigs from real WGD, and the EBP/VGP 6.C.Q40 standard. Use when judging whether an assembly is good enough to annotate or publish, comparing assemblers, diagnosing a fragmented or duplicated assembly, or assessing a phased diploid assembly.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Provides a structured framework for conducting thorough code reviews covering correctness, security, architecture alignment, performance, and technical debt.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Run convex-doctor static analysis, interpret findings, and fix issues across security, performance, correctness, schema, and architecture categories. Use when running convex-doctor, fixing convex-doctor warnings or errors, improving the convex-doctor score, or when asked about Convex code quality, static analysis, or linting Convex functions.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user wants a code review of an explicit range or set of files — correctness, security, performance, conventions, tests — with stable findings (CR-nnn, BLOCKER..INFO) and rule citations — 'revisar os últimos commits', 'code review da feature X', 'review base..HEAD'. Plans a REPORT-mode review (no code changes, no commit). Do NOT use to fix code (feat-feature / feat-quick), to write tests (feat-test) or for UI/UX design critique.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Review a code diff or explicit file set through independent correctness and QA lenses. Use when the user asks for a code review, test-coverage assessment, pre-merge audit, or review gate in a PWDEV Flow workflow.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Implement, review, or improve SwiftUI features using the iOS 26+ Liquid Glass API. Use when asked to adopt Liquid Glass in new SwiftUI UI, refactor an existing feature to Liquid Glass, or review Liquid Glass usage for correctness, performance, and design alignment.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Code review focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this over-engineered", "simplify review", or invokes /ponytail-review. Complements correctness-focused review, this one only hunts complexity.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Ground framework-specific implementation in official documentation — detect stack versions, fetch authoritative docs, implement cited patterns, cite sources. Load when building with a library or framework where API correctness matters, when the user wants verified or documented code, or before writing framework code from memory. Also triggers on "source driven development", "cite the docs", "check official documentation", "verify against docs", "don't hallucinate APIs". Not for pure logic or renames. Pairs with feature-spec and test-driven-development.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Review code changes for correctness, completeness, bugs, edge cases, and quality. Load when the user explicitly asks to review code, check a PR, review a diff, audit recent changes, or verify an implementation matches requirements. Also triggers on "review this code", "check this PR", "review my changes", "code review", "did this implement correctly", "audit this diff", or any explicit request for a formal code review. Do NOT load for "review changes for context" or "review what happened" — those are requests to read code, not to perform a formal review.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Identifies non-coding RNAs (tRNA, rRNA, snoRNA, snRNA, riboswitches, sRNAs) using Infernal covariance-model search against Rfam, tRNAscan-SE 2.0 for tRNA, barrnap for rRNA, and ARAGORN for tmRNA, plus the small-RNA-seq boundary for miRNA and the transcript-assembly boundary for lncRNA. Covers the structure-conserved-not-sequence-conserved principle (why BLAST fails), GA-threshold and clan-competition correctness, tRNAscan-SE domain modes and pseudogene flags, rDNA copy-number collapse, and why homology annotation is a recall floor. Use when performing genome-wide ncRNA annotation, choosing the right tool for an RNA class, or interpreting ncRNA counts.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Evaluates genome assembly quality across the three orthogonal axes - contiguity (QUAST auN/NG50/NGx, not bare N50), completeness (BUSCO/compleasm gene-space plus Merqury k-mer completeness), and correctness (reference-free Merqury QV, Inspector/CRAQ structural errors, asmgene false-duplication/collapse). Covers why N50 is the most-gamed metric, why QV measured on the polishing reads is circular, distinguishing uncollapsed haplotigs from real WGD, and the EBP/VGP 6.C.Q40 standard. Use when judging whether an assembly is good enough to annotate or publish, comparing assemblers, diagnosing a fragmented or duplicated assembly, or assessing a phased diploid assembly.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Frame multi-agent designs through explicit environment, autonomy, information, coordination, commitment, incentive, and verification assumptions. NOT for endorsing multi-agent architecture without need or claiming runtime correctness from conceptual methods.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Design or review a declared control-command profile and its verb/backend lifecycle matrix. Distinguish policy denial, unsupported capability, delivery acknowledgement, independently observed effect, and unknown outcome; bind authorization to principal, target, scope, current policy, expiry, and fencing epoch. NOT for claiming runtime correctness, proving an adapter from declarations, or approving a control-panel button without independent runtime evidence.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when a Spark implementation needs an evidence-based review for correctness, ownership, compatibility, failure handling, maintainability, and unnecessary complexity.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.