'self-review' 검색 결과

Create an HTML year-end self-review deck for a product manager, organizing responsibilities, results, lessons, and requests around supporting evidence. The template uses rounded cards and pastel colors to present the case to managers or review committees.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Preparing a product manager's year-end self-review
• Presenting evidence of achievements to a review committee
• Organizing lessons learned and career requests for a manager

コード変更のセルフレビューを実施する。Triggers on: '/self-review', 'セルフレビュー', 'self-review', 'コードレビューして'

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Execute development subtasks under a supervising agent, starting with an implementation plan and impact analysis. Deliver code and a three-question self-review in a defined completion format for the supervisor to assess.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Delegating an implementation subtask to an agent
• Planning changes and assessing their impact before coding
• Handing over code with a structured self-review

Use an English working contract in Trae to address repeated failures or unverified completion. It separates execution, self-review, and acceptance, guiding agents through small checks and delivering results with evidence, residual risks, and confirmation needs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Restarting a stalled task in Trae with a different approach
• Requesting command output to support a completion claim
• Reviewing changes with evidence and remaining risks

Generate the success criteria for a task or question, then review work against them. Given a task, goal, or open-ended question, decompose it into scenarios, evaluation perspectives, and fine-grained weighted YES/NO criteria using the Recursive Expansion Tree (RET) method; if work is supplied, score it criterion-by-criterion and surface what is missing or could be better. Use when asked to self-review or check your own work, judge whether a task is done well or completely, build a definition-of-done or completeness checklist, create an evaluation rubric or grading criteria, score or grade answers to a question, set up an LLM-as-judge rubric, or when the user mentions self-review, completeness check, success criteria, evaluation criteria, scoring rubric, Qworld, or the RET algorithm.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Build an HTML portfolio presentation for a senior designer interview, using three case studies to explain craft and design judgment. A fixed editorial layout with a neon yellow accent helps organize evidence for the hiring panel.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Preparing a portfolio presentation for a senior designer interview
• Structuring three design case studies
• Explaining the reasoning behind design decisions

Build a staff-engineer promotion deck that connects responsibilities, evidence, work artifacts, and impact. Present the case to a manager or review committee using a white editorial HTML template with speaker notes and slide navigation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Prepare a staff-engineer promotion case
• Present achievements and evidence to a manager
• Organize impact for a promotion review committee

Turn work history into clear accomplishment statements for performance reviews, promotion cases, and weekly updates. Use Copilot CLI sessions, git commits, and GitHub pull requests to connect each action with its result and supporting evidence.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Recovering work accomplishments missing from a personal log
• Preparing evidence for a performance review
• Organizing achievements for a promotion case

Design workflows that evaluate and refine AI outputs through self-review, separate generation and evaluation roles, tests, or weighted scoring criteria. Includes patterns for structured feedback, iteration limits, and stopping when quality stops improving.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Adding self-review and revision loops to AI outputs
• Separating generation from evaluation
• Refining generated code using test results

Review a diffusers contribution before opening a pull request. Check the full change against project rules, trace potentially unused code, and receive a severity-based report separating required fixes from points to discuss with reviewers.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Checking a diffusers contribution before opening a pull request
• Investigating potentially unused code in a change
• Reviewing fixes again and preparing notes for reviewers

Review code changes from three critical perspectives: production failures, maintainability, and security. Get a consolidated report that ranks findings by severity and provides merge guidance, helping examine assumptions that an ordinary self-review may overlook.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Reviewing a pull request before merging
• Getting a second opinion on AI-written code
• Checking authentication or data access code

Guide Trae through stalled tasks by comparing hypotheses, changing approaches after repeated failures, and checking results with relevant commands. It structures delivery around evidence, self-review, and remaining risks rather than unsupported claims of completion.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Reassess a task after repeated failures
• Check evidence behind a completion claim
• Report verified results and remaining risks

Guide Pi agents through repeated failures or unverified completion using competing hypotheses, small verifiable actions, and relevant checks. It separates self-review from external pass-or-fail decisions and requires evidence and remaining risks in delivery reports.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Revisiting hypotheses after repeated failures
• Delivering results with evidence and remaining risks
• Keeping self-review separate from external evaluation

This skill should be used when the user asks to "review paper quality", "check paper completeness", "validate paper structure", "self-review before submission", "audit claims", "check overclaiming", "verify whether results support claims", or mentions systematic paper quality checking. Provides comprehensive quality assurance checklist for academic papers.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "review paper quality", "check paper completeness", "validate paper structure", "self-review before submission", or mentions systematic paper quality checking. Provides comprehensive quality assurance checklist for academic papers.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Systematic academic paper review workflow covering self-review before submission and rebuttal writing after receiving reviewer feedback. Triggers on "review paper", "self-review", "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "analyze review comments", "paper review".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use before opening a PR, or whenever asked to self-review a diffusers contribution. Applies the same rubric as the `@claude` CI (checks the diff against references/review-rules.md, traces call paths for dead code). Reports findings grouped by severity, flagging what to fix before submitting (blocking issues + dead code) vs what to leave for the actual review. Report-only — does not edit files.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Post-implementation self-review. Use AFTER finishing ANY code implementation or change — before declaring it done, committing, or opening a PR — to critique your own work: re-read the diff adversarially, confirm unit tests cover every branch/edge, kill duplication, follow clean-code/SOLID and the repo's own docs & invariants, decide if something should become documentation, update/prune memory, and strip outdated comments. Trigger it whenever you've just written or modified code and are about to wrap up, even if the user didn't explicitly ask for a review.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when finishing spec.md before writing test-definitions.md, or when the review gate asks for a spec review — self-reviews the just-authored spec inline and earns its Tier 1 review stamp. Your own inline pass; do not spawn a sub-agent.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turn vague "what did I do?" into evidence-backed impact statements for performance reviews, self-reviews, promotion packets, and weekly updates. Uniquely mines Copilot CLI session logs to reconstruct forgotten work, plus git commits and GitHub PRs. Enforces a 3-part impact contract (action → result → evidence). Works standalone with zero dependencies. Trigger for: "brag", "log work", "what did I do", "backfill my work history", "performance review", "self-review", "self assessment", "write impact statement", "review prep", "promo packet", "promotion case", "weekly update", "status report", "accomplishments", "what did I ship", "I forgot to log my work", "summarize my work", "track my wins", "what should I highlight", "end of half", "career growth", "work journal", or any request to document, summarize, or organize work accomplishments.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Review+fix protocol with optional pre-core git diff review and safety guardrails (unsoundness, invariants, footguns, incidental complexity). Use when prompts say "/tw-fix this PR", "fix current branch", "fix this diff", "repair CI red", or "apply a minimal patch", and when crash/corruption/invariant-break issues need correction with a validation signal. Stop only after self-review exhausts actionable changes, each full cycle reaches post-self-review rerun plus terminal diff-review closure, and two consecutive zero-edit full cycles are clean.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Hostile self-review of recently written AI workflow code that then applies fixes (agents, tools, chat context, summarization, tokens, attachments). Use after generating AI systems code, or when asked to self-review and harden it. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate attacks (adversarial-challenge). Prefer: adversarial-challenge → decide → this skill.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Guide authors through a structured self-review before requesting peer review.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

PR レビュー。PR 番号・URL・ブランチ名・Slack リンク等を添えて PR の「レビュー」を依頼された時に使用（ビルトインの /review ではなく本スキル）。Claude Code と外部 CLI のマルチモデルレビューで Critical/High/Medium の指摘を報告する。境界: ローカル未コミット変更は /code-review、自ブランチの提出前チェックは self-review、特定コメントへの対応は pr-comment。PR の状態確認・作成相談では使わない。

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.