'correctness' 검색 결과

Use when reviewing or auditing a library of Claude Code skills, agents, slash commands, and workflows — frontmatter correctness, routing quality, tool allowlists, command arg-hints, workflow meta/phase coherence, cross-reference coherence, single-responsibility, file structure, and anti-pattern detection. Triggers on mentions of "review skills", "audit agents", "skill library", "agent definition review", "review this command", "review this workflow", "is this skill right", or when iterating on `.claude/skills/`, `.claude/agents/`, `.claude/commands/`, or `.claude/workflows/` directories. For code review of source code see code-review-and-quality.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Conducts multi-axis code review across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Triggers on "review my PR", "review this diff", "code review", "review this changeset", "is this ready to merge", "pre-merge review".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Scientific research engine v6.0 NEXUS — adversarial review (Reviewer 2), 32 quality gates, tree search, serendipity tracking, confounder harness, cross-session learning. Use for ANY scientific analysis, hypothesis testing, data validation, literature review, or task where correctness > speed.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Code auditor that grades software projects and the agents/developers who built them. Produces structured JSON + Markdown reports with a standardized rubric. Evaluates architecture, correctness, testing, authorship cohesiveness, ghost code, and more. Optionally ingests tmux session logs for process evidence and interrogates agents about specific problems found. Use when asked to "audit", "grade", "evaluate", "review code quality", "rate this project", "score the agents", or "assess the codebase". Especially useful after Marcus multi-agent experiments to grade agent output and track quality over time.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Grounds every implementation decision in official documentation. Use when you want authoritative, source-cited code free from outdated patterns. Use when building with any framework or library where correctness matters.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Develop, challenge, and document Chisel processor microarchitecture designs before implementation. Use when discussing or writing design documents for processor pipelines, queues, issue logic, rename, ROB, LSU, caches, MSHRs, forwarding, wakeup, replay, flush, privilege, exceptions, or other cycle-accurate hardware mechanisms; when converting design conversations into stable Markdown specifications; or when reviewing a proposed Chisel CPU design for correctness, timing, area, verification cost, and cross-document consistency.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Diagnose agent operational failures through default-policy checks, multi-gap analysis, explicit service ownership, request-context lifetime, and degradation-versus-correctness checks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Evaluate repeated code and consolidate duplication when a shared abstraction improves correctness or maintenance. Use after introducing similar logic or when repeated changes reveal a missing source of truth.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review changed code for correctness, security, maintainability, and verification gaps. Use when code is ready for independent review or before handoff, staging, or merge.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a GitHub PR with a shallow correctness/security/breaking/AI-slop checklist and emits a verdict; optionally posts via gh. NOT for own-diff audit (mk:review); NOT for replying (mk:respond-pr).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Reviews a GitHub PR with a single shallow correctness/security/breaking/AI-slop checklist and emits a verdict; optionally posts it via gh pr review. Use to review an external or teammate PR. NOT for deep pre-landing audit of your own diff (see mk:review); NOT for responding to received review comments (see mk:respond-pr).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review a small code or documentation change and return only evidence-backed correctness findings. Use in the Codex How To local plugin lab; do not modify files or post remote comments.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review code changes for correctness defects, regressions, security risks, data-integrity problems, concurrency hazards, and missing meaningful tests. Use for pull requests, branches, commits, patches, or working-tree reviews; do not use for implementation unless the user separately requests fixes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Grounds every implementation decision in official documentation. Use when you want authoritative, source-cited code free from outdated patterns. Use when building with any framework or library where correctness matters.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production, security-sensitive logic, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now than to debug later.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Mint a new YYYY-MM-DD-exact-coding-baseline snapshot under research/workflow-dev/export/. Detects the current best correctness- oriented workflow from research/workflow-dev/workflow-construction.md (or takes an explicit source-workflow argument) and transforms it from a lab workflow into a consumer-ready one on three axes: strips lab-only measurement content, re-enables human-in-the-loop checkpoints, and converts auto-loading config into an explicitly-invoked skill. Supports both promoted EXACT Coding lines: Opus/Hybrid and SOL/Predictive TDD. Exports Claude Code, pi, OpenCode, cursor-agent and, for SOL, Copilot. Trigger when the user says "exact-coding baseline export", "neue exact-coding baseline", "exact-coding-baseline-export", or asks to refresh the baseline snapshot.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review gate for correctness, reuse, and simplification. Produces a structured verdict with actionable findings. Trigger on any PR before merge, or on any agent-generated code before it is committed.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review code against a standard checklist covering security, correctness, performance, and readability. Use when asked to review code, check a PR, or audit changes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a diff needs correctness review — null-safety, edge cases, off-by-one, races, error handling — dispatched by /review-changes, /do-and-judge, /judge, even without 'judge'.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user says "review this", "check my code", or wants feedback on changes. Reviews for correctness, quality, security, and coding standards.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when reviewing PRs/diffs/branches/documents for .NET quality, correctness, performance, security, data access, messaging, and observability. Includes adversarial critical-thinking mode for skeptical/cynical review requests. Keywords: code review, review PR, review diff, critical review, cynical review, adversarial review, production readiness, low GC, AOT, security review.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user asks for a multi-agent .NET code review - five parallel reviewers (correctness, performance, security/observability, data/messaging/integration, generalist) plus an adversarial maintainer that refutes weak findings. Requires the review agent roles registered by scripts/install-codex.sh. Keywords: dotnet review pipeline, multi-agent review, parallel reviewers, maintainer pushback, review this branch, cynical review.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Compile deep repository evidence into artifact-bound correctness doctrine — authority/law/proof maps, owned invariants, failure archaeology, and the strongest durable destination for each piece of knowledge, plus an optional minimal repository-specific skill portfolio. Use when the user wants both deep codebase understanding AND durable doctrine, knowledge routing, or repo-specific skill recommendations. Research discoverable facts before asking. Read-only. Not for quick onboarding, one isolated invariant, ordinary implementation, generic review, or direct skill creation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turn 'should never happen' into 'cannot happen' by defining owned inductive invariants and enforcing them at parse/construct/API/DB/lock/txn boundaries with a verification signal. Use when prompts mention invariants, impossible states, validation sprawl, cache/index drift, idempotency/versioning, retries/duplicates/out-of-order events, race/linearization bugs, loop correctness, or hardening another workflow (for example /tw-fix) with invariant checks first.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.