'correctness' 검색 결과

Invoke when the user asks to review, check, audit, or look over Qt6 C++ code — or suggest before committing. Runs deterministic linting (60+ rules) then deep-analysis agents (scaled to the size of the change) covering model contracts, ownership, threading, API correctness, error handling, and performance. Reports only high-confidence issues (>80/100) with structured mitigations. Read-only — never modifies code.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

DO NOT INVOKE when the primary request explicitly asks to convert, migrate, modernize, or rewrite a legacy/old-style project to SDK style; use msbuild-modernization. Migration prompts often mention ToolsVersion, explicit Compile/Reference entries, packages.config, or Microsoft.CSharp.targets, but merely reviewing or auditing a file that contains those patterns remains in scope here. USE FOR broad review, audit, lint, or maintainability/correctness checks of project/build files, including custom targets; prioritized cross-cutting findings; discrete anti-patterns; F# ordering/FS0039; cross-platform paths; and focused Import safety verdicts. Review/audit is analysis-only unless fixes are requested. For concrete property/item defects use property-patterns/item-management; use target-authoring for implementation and extension-points for NuGet auto-import/layout discovery. Exclude non-MSBuild systems.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Validates custom dotnet new templates for correctness before publishing. Catches missing fields, parameter bugs, shortName conflicts, constraint issues, and common authoring mistakes that cause templates to fail silently. USE FOR: checking template.json files for errors before publishing or testing, diagnosing why a template doesn't appear after installation, reviewing template parameter definitions for type mismatches and missing defaults, finding shortName conflicts with dotnet CLI commands, validating post-action and constraint configuration. DO NOT USE FOR: finding or using existing templates (use template-discovery), creating projects from templates (use template-instantiation), creating templates from existing projects (use template-authoring).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Author and review GitHub Actions workflow YAML safely so syntactically-valid YAML can't ship a workflow that GitHub Actions refuses to run. USE FOR: editing, adding, or reviewing any file under .github/workflows/, writing run-name/name/if/env/run values that contain ${{ }} expressions, diagnosing a run that fails with 'This run likely failed because of a workflow file issue' and no jobs starting, deciding when a workflow scalar must be quoted, validating workflows with actionlint. DO NOT USE FOR: authoring application YAML unrelated to GitHub Actions, Azure Pipelines, GitLab CI, or non-workflow YAML. SCOPE: this skill covers *syntactic/structural* correctness of workflow YAML (quoting, parsing, actionlint); for *semantic and functional* workflow design (what a workflow should do, agentic-workflow behavior), see .github/agents/agentic-workflows.agent.md — the two are complementary. INVOKES: actionlint (downloaded pinned binary) plus git/grep for inspection.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review and optimize application data access that uses Entity Framework Core (EF Core). Use for EF Core performance and correctness reviews of services, repositories, imports, and background jobs: slow or memory-heavy queries, excessive round-trips, hidden SaveChanges, premature materialization, dynamic query construction, result-graph tracking, bulk writes, DbContext lifetime or overlapping operations, search semantics, paging, raw SQL, and model/index coverage. Use whether or not EF Core owns the schema. For EF Core, not Dapper or raw ADO.NET.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

SQL query review for correctness, performance, and best practices. Activate when a query needs review before production use, shows unexpected results, or runs too slowly.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Translate SQL queries into plain language business logic. Use when documenting queries, explaining analysis to non-technical stakeholders, code reviewing for correctness, or building a query catalog.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Cut token usage across the whole session without losing correctness or substance — concise user replies, lean tests/docs/plans/comments, tight code, disciplined context and tool use, and cheap sub-agent delegation. Load when the user wants less verbosity, lower cost, fewer tokens, or a "token diet" / "lean mode"; also triggered by /token-diet or "token diet on".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review recommendation-system code, architecture, experiment, or design for correctness, serving safety, offline-online consistency, capacity, observability, and rollback gaps.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Enhancement overlay for multi-agent / tool-using coder agents. Encodes the per-agent tool- scoping discipline that role-based frameworks (CrewAI, LangChain) document only as a passing best-practice: which agent gets which tool, and why blanket-sharing every tool to every agent is a correctness and blast-radius risk. Activates when an agent system has tools AND there is more than one agent (or one agent holding many tools). Treat a tool as a capability grant; scope by least-privilege. ENHANCE overlay — read alongside [[crewai]], [[agentsop-http-tool-wrapping]], [[agentsop-llm-tool-idempotency]]. Search keywords: which tools per agent, least-privilege agent, agent tool access, tool permissions, limit agent tools, scope tools to roles.overlay_type: enhancement

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review a complete mathematical-modeling competition paper with an atomic checklist covering abstract readability, page structure, typography, headings, pagination, figures, tables, equations, anonymity, metadata, visual balance, and page allocation. Return the review in chat or Markdown by default, and provide the bundled single-sheet checklist when the user requests a reusable form. Use when the user provides a PDF or Word paper and asks for a full-paper format and writing-compliance audit; do not replace technical model correctness review.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Interpret third-party feedback by running parallel internal and peer interpretations to surface intent, correctness concerns, and ambiguities. Use when the user asks to "interpret feedback", "interpret comments", "what does this feedback mean", "clarify reviewer intent", "understand this review", or "interpret these suggestions".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps and low-value tests by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to "review my code", "full code review", "review my changes", "check for bugs", "scan for bugs", "review correctness", "security audit", "find vulnerabilities", "review security", "check API usage", "verify against docs", "check for cross-file duplication", "review consistency", "check for code reuse", "review simplicity", "find untested code", "find redundant tests", or "review test coverage".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Adversarially review something just built — presume it is broken and find where. Use after implementing a feature, finishing a build, or before shipping, or whenever ATLAS or Boss wants a hostile second opinion on a diff, a running app, or a whole codebase. Spawns clean-context reviewers with opposing lenses (correctness, security, empty-world) and reproduces every finding by running the target before believing it. Distinct from /code-review, which statically reads a diff and never runs the app.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Draft, diagnose, and improve IEEE rebuttals, revision plans, cover letters, response letters, and point-by-point replies using routed reviewer-comment handling. Use when responding to IEEE reviewer or editor comments about novelty, scope, method, experiments, baselines, figures, tables, citations, writing, LaTeX formatting, limitations, compliance, technical correctness, or reviewer comments that appear generic, contradictory, unsupported, careless, or possibly AI-generated.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Run Core's pinned local React Doctor audit after React or Next.js edits; fix actionable correctness, accessibility, composition, performance, and design findings and validate exact exceptions across all eight targets. Use when the user mentions React Doctor or requests React diagnostics or cleanup.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Automatic quality control, linting, and static analysis procedures. Use after every code modification to ensure syntax correctness and project standards. Triggers onKeywords: lint, format, check, validate, types, static analysis.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Performs a deep code review of files, modules, a diff, or a branch - finding security vulnerabilities (mapped to OWASP Top 10:2025), correctness bugs, performance problems, and maintainability issues - and returns severity-ranked findings with evidence and concrete fixes. Use when the user asks to review, audit, or sanity-check code, asks "is this safe", "what's wrong with this", "find bugs", or wants a security or performance pass before shipping. For posting line comments on a GitHub pull request, use git-pr-reviewer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

MLflow 3 GenAI agent evaluation. Use when writing mlflow.genai.evaluate() code, creating @scorer functions, using built-in scorers (Guidelines, Correctness, Safety, RetrievalGroundedness), building eval datasets from traces, setting up trace ingestion and production monitoring, aligning judges with MemAlign from domain expert feedback, or running optimize_prompts() with GEPA for automated prompt improvement.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Provides patterns for testing utility classes, static methods, and helper functions. Validates pure functions, null handling, edge cases, and boundary conditions. Generates AssertJ assertions and @ParameterizedTest for string utils, math utils, validators, and collection helpers. Use when testing utils, test helpers, helper functions, static methods, or verifying utility code correctness.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Provides a structured 8-phase workflow for resolving GitHub issues in Claude Code. Covers fetching issue details, analyzing requirements, implementing solutions, verifying correctness, performing code review, committing changes, and creating pull requests. Use when user asks to resolve, implement, work on, fix, or close a GitHub issue, or references an issue URL or number for implementation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use the OpenConstructionERP validation engine: rule packs (BOQ quality, DIN 276, NRM, GAEB, MasterFormat, DPGF) that check estimates at import time and on demand. Use when verifying BOQ correctness or writing custom validation rules.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Start here for any iOS or SwiftUI task. Coordinates best-practice guides, correctness checks, and full Apple API references. Use before navigating to other Apple skills — for building, reviewing, refactoring, or debugging iOS apps.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Verifies math-heavy code for algorithmic correctness and numerical stability. Use when reviewing scientific algorithms, ML models, or numerical code.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.