「correctness」の検索結果

Use ESLint in .NET repositories that ship JavaScript, TypeScript, React, or other Node-based frontend assets. Use when a repo needs a configurable CLI lint gate for frontend correctness, import hygiene, unsafe patterns, or framework-specific rules.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use HTMLHint in .NET repositories that ship static HTML output or standalone frontend templates. Use when a repo needs a focused CLI lint gate for DOM structure, invalid attributes, and basic HTML correctness checks on static pages.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Automated health checks for framework artifacts modified during a pipeline. Validates hook syntax, security patterns (SE-01/SE-02), skill wiring, agent consistency, and routing correctness. Invoked as the final pipeline step when framework artifacts were created, modified, or deleted.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Independent re-derivation gate for proposed changes during autonomous execution. Evaluates a change (code diff, config edit, engine evolution, schema change) against the work's authority matrix and a 4-check protocol: invariant compliance, scope authorization, detection narrowness, and regression risk. Returns structured JSON with pass/fail per check, an overall verdict (APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT), and blockers. Profile-driven thresholds (strict for unattended runs, lenient for desk supervision). Use when an autonomous agent proposes an engine change, when reviewing a Claude Code-authored modification before merge, or when an unattended profile requires independent re-derivation. Trigger on: "review/approve this proposed change," "critic-gate this," "is this change safe," "is this safe to merge," "should I let this land," "run the critic." Do NOT use for handoff-readiness checks (use rootnode-handoff-trigger-check), general code review, or design-time correctness. Authority matrix required.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review a data analysis for quality, correctness, and reproducibility. Covers data quality assessment, assumption checking, model validation, data leakage detection, and reproducibility verification. Use when reviewing a colleague's analysis before publication, validating an ML pipeline before production deployment, auditing a report for regulatory or business decision-making, or performing a second-analyst review in a regulated environment.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review a PR for correctness, security, code quality, and testing issues. TRIGGER when user asks to review a PR, check PR quality, or give feedback on a PR.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when profiling CUDA with Nsight Systems or Nsight Compute, reading roofline and occupancy metrics, or annotating phases with NVTX. Not for correctness: use cuda-debugging.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a non-trivial decision sits under uncertainty and correctness matters more than speed. Not for patch review: use review. Not for plan attacks: use load-bearing-assumption-test.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the user asks for a code review by a fleet of specialized reviewer agents, wants multiple independent reviewer perspectives, or asks to run reviewers in single-pass or iterative fix-until-clean mode. Launches focused subagents for correctness, security, architecture, conventions, simplicity, UX, reliability, telemetry, testing, compatibility, and documentation review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Compile, profile, diagnose, optimize, and compare Ascend NPU operators across CANN versions and A2/A3/A5 for Ascend C, CATLASS, Triton-Ascend, TileLang-Ascend, PyPTO, and SHMEM/MC2. Use when an operator already has a runnable implementation and the user asks for msOpProf collection, bottleneck analysis, source-level tuning, or a reproducible before/after performance report. Do not use as the primary workflow for operator creation, migration, or unresolved correctness failures.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Perform critical Rust code reviews covering correctness, edition 2024 compliance, error handling, API design, async pitfalls, and dependency hygiene. ALWAYS use this skill when the user wants to review, audit, or critically evaluate Rust code — whether that's a PR diff, a specific crate or module, a cross-cutting concern like error handling, or the whole codebase. This includes requests to "review my changes", "check this code", "audit for best practices", "look for issues", "what's wrong with this", or "flag anything that could bite us". Use it even when the user doesn't say "review" explicitly but is asking you to find problems, inconsistencies, or anti-patterns in existing Rust code. Do NOT use for requests to write, fix, refactor, test, explain, or implement code — only for evaluating existing code.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Design, validate, and optimize schema.org structured data for eligibility, correctness, and measurable SEO impact.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a website needs a broad audit covering UX, conversion, content, SEO, technical correctness, and information hierarchy before changes are planned.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review a diff, commit, branch, PR, or implementation for actionable correctness and risk issues without duplicate reviewer loops or invented findings.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when writing or reviewing error handling, floating-point math, concurrent code, remote calls, singletons/globals, hot-path data structures, or high-volume log statements

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

General workflow for auditing ML CI failures, experiment regressions, training run failures, golden metric failures, and telemetry-backed ML work-product claims from local repositories, logs, metrics, configs, and artifacts. Use when Codex needs to decide whether an ML failure is a model/convergence issue, correctness bug, data/config issue, infrastructure/runtime issue, evaluation/gating policy issue, or unsupported claim, and produce structured evidence-backed outputs.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Perform a direct five-axis code review across correctness, security, performance, readability, and maintainability. Use when the user asks for `/review`, PR review, security review, pre-merge review, production readiness review, or blocking issue assessment.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Phase 3 of the feature-pipeline suite. Run this after /fp-implement has pushed all commits and printed the M2 stop hook. Spawns a sandboxed sub-agent (HEAVIER) in an isolated worktree to run RED/GREEN tests against the PR diff and post a structured review comment. Use when you need an independent agent to verify correctness of implementation changes before CI runs — especially for schema mutations, CLI surface changes, or doc-touching commits. Triggers on: "review the PR", "run sandbox review", "fp-review", "Phase 3", "check the implementation", "validate the changes", "run tests on the PR", or any instruction to verify what /fp-implement just pushed.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Perform structured code reviews focusing on correctness, readability, security, and maintainability. Use this skill when reviewing pull requests, evaluating code changes, or establishing review standards for a team.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews Web Audio API JavaScript/TypeScript code for correctness, thread safety, and deprecated patterns. Use when the user asks to review AudioWorklet code, check an AudioWorkletProcessor, audit Web Audio graph construction, or diagnose crackling/dropouts in a web audio app. Trigger on phrases like "review my Web Audio code", "check my AudioWorklet", "is my AudioWorkletProcessor safe", or "why does my web audio crackle".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews AudioUnit v2/v3 plugin implementations for spec compliance, thread safety, and correctness. Use when the user asks to review an AudioUnit plugin, check an AUv3 app extension, audit property or parameter handling, or asks "is my AUComponent thread-safe?" or "why does my AU crash in Logic?". Trigger on phrases like "review my AudioUnit", "check my AUv3", "is my render block safe?", or when you see AURenderCallback, internalRenderBlock, kAudioUnitProperty_*, or AUAudioUnit in the code.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Systematic checklist for diagnosing audio artifacts. Use when the user describes a sound quality problem — clicks, pops, crackling, silence, DC offset, aliasing, phase issues, or latency problems. Trigger on phrases like "why do I hear clicks?", "my output has DC offset", "there's aliasing in my oscillator", "phase is wrong in mono", "dropout when CPU spikes". Pairs with audio-dsp-review (realtime safety) and audio-numerics-review (numeric correctness) — use those to fix once the cause is found.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。