「review loop」の検索結果

ALIGN-video for Codex. Create or revise a video through agent-authored code, rendering, editing and fresh-context audiovisual review, without image, video or music generation models. Use for reference-led animation, procedural films, motion design, explainers, construction replays, and continuing an existing coded-video project. Carries the work from reference study and animatic through a finished, reproducible film; supports explicitly requested self-review when appropriate.

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。

Run the open-pr e2e fixture through a real review in a fresh subagent, grade it against e2e/checklist.md with a second independent subagent, diagnose each failure to the prompt file that owns it, fix, and repeat until clean or the round budget runs out. Use when changing anything under src/ and you want evidence the review still behaves, not just green unit tests.

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。

Builds, validates, packages, tests, and optimizes deployment-ready Skill files (SKILL.md + references/ + scripts/ + agents/) from design specifications. Three pre-build gates + 9-dimension quality gate (with D9a/b/c empirical evidence tiers) + behavioral iteration loop + automated description optimizer + blind version comparator. Use for building, reviewing, revising, testing, or optimizing Skills. Trigger on: "build this Skill," "review this Skill," "test my Skill," "optimize the description," "compare these Skill versions," "should this be a hook instead," "build a template first." Also: "my Skill doesn't activate," "my description truncates," "my SKILL.md is too long," "my Skill is overtriggering." Do NOT use when designing Skill methodology — that's design work, not packaging. Do NOT use for prompt compilation, project auditing, or prompt scoring (use rootnode-prompt-compilation, rootnode-project-audit, or rootnode-prompt-validation if available).

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。

Address PR review comments and loop until CI green and all comments resolved. TRIGGER when user asks to address comments, fix PR feedback, respond to reviewers, or babysit/monitor 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 designing human approval gates for high-stakes agent actions. Keywords: human-in-the-loop, HITL, approval gate, checkpoint, confirmation, risk-tiered, action 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。

Voert de iteratieve desk-review-&-completion-cyclus uit op een regelrecht-corpus — plannen, harvesten/migreren/uitbreiden, multi-agent valideren, bevindingen 4-weg classificeren (modellering-fout / wetgevings-fout / engine-limitatie / acceptabele untranslatable), synthese + heroverweging, documenteren (wetgevings-/stelselfouten-analyse, fixes-plan, engine-limitaties, diagrammen, corpus-status), verifiëren tegen externe bronnen (resolutie-tracker + bronnen-dossier), en een eindrapport per cyclus. Gebruik dit bij corpus-review op correctheid/coverage zonder live expert-sessie, het opstellen van een wetgevings-notitie-bron, schema-migratie, het harvesten van nieuwe wetten, of het aansturen van een autonome completion-loop. Dossier-agnostisch; de regelrecht-methode is de vaste taal. Voor live-validatie met experts: zie regelrecht-audit-products.

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。

Capture learnings from a campaign, launch, sprint, or initiative using Five Whys (Taiichi Ohno, Toyota Production System) for root cause analysis and Start-Stop-Continue for action planning. Append reusable insights to knowledge/learnings.md so future runs of the OS get smarter. Use when the user asks for a retro, retrospective, post-mortem, "what did we learn", "campaign wrap-up", "lessons learned", or after a campaign or launch ends. Critical feedback loop that makes the OS compound over time. For the numbers review itself, see kpi-review. For planning the next campaign, see campaign-brief.

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。

Apply the Fable-derived 10-stage OBSERVE, OBSERVE, LISTEN, THINK, CONNECT, CONNECT, FEEL, ACCEPT, CREATE, GROW loop to consequential or ambiguous reasoning and decisions. Use for think this through, deep think, architecture review, postmortem, tradeoff analysis, or challenges to assumptions. This is a reasoning review, not a deterministic vault health check or repair workflow.

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。

Autonomous bug-elimination loop. Iteratively invokes /bug-hunt and /implement-batch until findings converge below an operator-specified severity floor. At termination, runs /review-test scoped to the run's new reproducing tests and fixes quality issues above the floor. Auto-approves /bug-hunt and /review-test ticket proposals; pulls the andon cord on contested findings, repeated implementation failure, hard-cap exhaustion, or breaking-change proposals. Optional /refactor finisher.

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。

交付闭环：当用户显式调用 `$delivery-loop`，或明确要求进入“交付闭环”时使用。 面向已有 PRD、UI/HTML、截图或 Product Delivery Package 但仍有 Review 缺口的场景，在独立评审与定点修订之间最多循环三轮，直到 package_ready 或进入 Human Gate；不用于从模糊问题开始。

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。

Bootstrap self-improving Symphony + Linear orchestration for a software repository. Use when Codex needs to inspect a repo, review or generate repo-local guidance, shape Linear issues, render a Symphony workflow, launch a high-leverage first execution wave, or run an orchestrator-led review, recovery, and learnings loop that makes future runs better.

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。

Relentlessly interview the user about THEIR plan or design — one question at a time — resolving each branch of a decision tree until shared understanding. Claude is the interviewer; the user is the interviewee. Triggers on "grill me", "stress-test this plan", "get grilled on my design", "interrogate my plan". Checkpoints every answer to docs/knowledge/<slug>.md so progress survives a context-window reset. Flags knowledge the user cannot answer as a gap to chase. Do NOT use to PROPOSE solutions or compare approaches (→ mk:brainstorming). Do NOT use to validate "is this worth building?" (→ mk:office-hours). Do NOT use when Claude should ANSWER questions about the repo (→ mk:ask-me). Do NOT use for a one-shot review of an existing plan (→ mk:plan-ceo-review). Do NOT use to apply named reasoning lenses to findings (→ mk:elicit).

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。

Implement a repository code or configuration change through reproduction, focused checks, review, and evidence. Use for end-to-end features and fixes; not for explanation-only, review-only, research, content publishing, or production operations.

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。

[Workflow] Use when activating the Integration Test Green workflow — drive an integration-test suite to fully green with a bounded convergence loop: verify the whole system (or the named target), adjudicate every failure with /debug-investigate + /integration-test-review before any edit, fix at the owning layer, /changes-review each round's fix diff, re-verify from scratch, then sync spec TCs, the integration-test reference doc, and feature docs.

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。

Multi-agent adversarial verification with convergence loop. Two independent review agents must both pass before output ships. Use when output must clear two independent adversarial reviewers before it ships.

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。

GStack developer-experience plan review for setup, local commands, docs, test loops, onboarding friction, and maintainability before implementation.

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。

Flags where a P&ID draft raises a process safety question and points to the candidate evidence an engineer would review (HAZOP register, relief study, SIL assessment, isolation philosophy), as questions and quoted passages with UNKNOWN for missing documents, plus safety functions, relief devices and isolation requirements carried over as stated. Never rates, sizes, classifies, resolves or declares protection adequate. Use when the user asks to "write the process safety flags", "produce the process safety section of the P&ID enrichment", "list which protection questions this P&ID raises" or "map the HAZOP and relief study evidence to the draft" after gate G2, once the piping and instrumentation sections exist. Do not use for proposing loops, alarms or trips from the control philosophy, use instrumentation-and-control-enrichment instead; do not use for checking identifiers, use tagging-and-numbering. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Proposes the instrumentation and control content a P&ID adds to an accepted PFD process model: instruments drawn carried over as facts, measurement points and control loops the control philosophy requires, tag structure per the project instrument numbering procedure, system interfaces, and alarms, interlocks, trips and fail actions as quoted. Never assigns safety functions, ranges or setpoints. Use when the user asks to "run the instrumentation and control enrichment", "add the instrument section to the P&ID draft", "list the control loops the philosophy requires" or "carry the PFD instruments into the P&ID" after the piping section. Do not use for safety flags, SIL or trip classification, use process-safety-flags instead; do not use to assign tag numbers, use tagging-and-numbering. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Per-toolkit hardening audit loop for NV oOS Pro tools. Systematically scans each addons/pro/includes/tools/<toolkit> (and its plugins/nvoos-content-graph-pro mirror) for the four recurring production failure classes — unguarded shell calls that fatal on exec-disabled hosts, calls to nonexistent client methods, string-assuming parsing of provider responses that may be arrays, and provider enum/service mismatches — then fixes, tests (Docker PHPUnit), and validates (phpcs both standards) before moving to the next toolkit. Use when asked to audit a toolkit, review the X tools for similar issues, do the same for the other toolkits, or continue the toolkit audit loop. The first case study (document-generation) found 3 fatal bugs + 1 broken regex.

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。

Runs a bounded spec-build-review development loop with explicit scope, stop conditions, and human approval gates for risky or ambiguous work.

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。

Detects N+1 query patterns (relation access inside loops without eager loading), full-table get()/all() loads, and unsafe chunk()/cursor() usage in Laravel Eloquent 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。

指摘対応の反復（レビューコメント→修正→再レビュー）で、個別には正しい修正の蓄積が当初スコープを逸脱した（scope creep）、または成立済みの前提（"動いていた"状態）を破壊した（premise break）連鎖を diff-time で検出する。技術的正しさとスコープ整合性を別軸で評価し、report-only で finding/question のみ出力する。1コメント単位のトリアージ・構造変更後の caller 残骸・plan 前提解消は隣接 skill へ委譲する

two-stage review (spec compliance first, then code quality), refactoring, and quality improvement. Use when reviewing code, eliminating code smells, reducing technical debt, refactoring methods, running self-critique loops, or improving maintainability and readability.

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 task should repeat on a schedule or until a condition holds (CI until green, follow a PR to merge, review rounds until no blockers, daily session summary). Ships ready prompt templates with run and duration limits, stop conditions and go-gate safety rules, and per-harness loop invocation.

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。