'correctness' 검색 결과

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

[62] VALIDATE. Final self-check before delivery. Verify goal alignment, completeness, correctness, and identify residual risks. Produces quality score (0-100) and delivery status. Use when completing any significant work, before handoff, or when you need confidence that work is ready.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

INVOKE THIS SKILL for LLM-as-judge evaluation workflows on Arize: creating/updating evaluators, running evaluations on spans or experiments, tasks, trigger-run, column mapping, and continuous monitoring. Use when the user says: create an evaluator, LLM judge, hallucination/faithfulness/correctness/relevance, run eval, score my spans or experiment, ax tasks, trigger-run, trigger eval, column mapping, continuous monitoring, query filter for evals, evaluator version, or improve an evaluator prompt.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review a module or recent change for correctness, maintainability, and risk

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Validates Conductor project artifacts for completeness, consistency, and correctness. Use after setup, when diagnosing issues, or before implementation to verify project context.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.