「severity」の検索結果

Design an API linting ruleset — style rules, severity levels, and custom organization conventions. Use when asked to "design an API lint ruleset", "enforce API style", or "write Spectral 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。

Handles PR review comments and feedback resolution. Use when user wants to resolve PR comments, handle review feedback, fix review comments, address PR review, check review status, respond to reviewer, verify PR readiness, review PR comments, analyze review feedback, evaluate PR comments, assess review suggestions, or triage PR comments. Fetches comments via GitHub CLI, classifies by severity, applies fixes with user confirmation, commits with proper format, replies to threads.

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。

Provides incident response best practices covering severity classification, on-call rotation, war room protocols, runbook templates, escalation policies, and blameless postmortems. Use when handling an incident, setting up on-call, writing a postmortem, creating a runbook, configuring PagerDuty or OpsGenie, or building incident management processes.

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 ship-safe security and quality audit on the current project. Executes npx ship-safe audit . and reports findings by severity. Use before shipping any feature or 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。

Format and score completed plugin assessment findings without starting another assessment workflow. Use when a plugin assessment needs the standard report structure, scoring criteria, severity breakdown, or marketplace-readiness result.

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 for architecture review, dependency graphs, coupling analysis, or circular dependency detection. Establishes project module namespaces and traces imports plus Claude plugin hook, skill, script, PEP 723, and MCP boundaries. Emits partitioned Mermaid graphs with cycle, coupling, and ownership signals; verifies contract and consequence before assigning severity. Registers diagrams as codebase-analysis artifacts.

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。

Orchestrate research entry lifecycle in ./research/ — create, batch-import, refresh stale entries, and validate structure. Use when asked to add a tool, research a URL, document a library, refresh research, validate entries, or given any tool or library URL. Supports --batch (parallel multi-URL), --rerun (refresh one or all entries), and --validate (structural check with auto-fix of error-severity issues).

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。

Organizes an author’s response to peer review. Extracts every referee and editor point, tags severity and type, orders the revision by dependency, flags defensible pushbacks as questions, and builds a numbered comment → response → location letter whose substantive answers the author writes. Use when the user has referee reports, a revise-and-resubmit decision, or an editor’s letter and wants to plan the revision, draft the response letter, or check that every point was addressed. The reviewer-side twin is journal-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。

Reviews an existing conjoint study for threats to inference and returns severity-ranked findings on design, estimation, measurement error, external validity, and interpretation. Use when checking whether a conjoint design or analysis holds up, or answering referee comments on one.

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 an existing conjoint study for threats to inference and returns severity-ranked findings on design integrity, estimation, measurement error, external validity, and interpretation, including the guardrail against reading an AMCE as majority preference. Use when the user asks whether a conjoint design or analysis holds up, has referee comments on a conjoint, or wants a second opinion on estimation or interpretation. New designs go to conjoint-design, reshaping to conjoint-cleaning.

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 holistic, human-reviewer-style critique of the currently staged Git changes (or, with `--working-copy`, of all uncommitted changes, with `--branch`, of a branch against its base, or, with `--commit`, of a single commit) and emit an approve/reject verdict with prioritized, severity-tagged, line-cited findings. Use when the user wants the staged diff, a branch, or a commit "reviewed", "critiqued", or "code-reviewed".

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。

Post a sitrep (situation report) for a live incident, in its incident channel: a short fixed-layout update for people who haven't read the whole channel — the current picture and what moved since the previous update. Use on "sitrep", "status update", "where are we", "what's the latest", "catch me up", "summarize the incident so far", when asked to keep posting on a schedule ("post a sitrep every hour until resolved"), or when the oncall memory sets an update cadence for this severity and the incident owner asks Claude to keep it. Reads the channel, alert thread and findings posted, re-reads the one key signal, and writes: status line, TL;DR, impact, what changed since the last sitrep, what's in progress and who has it, what's needed, when the next update comes, one chart. Facts come only from what people said or Claude read first-hand; cause and recovery time are never guessed. Fits one phone screen. Not investigation (`incident-investigate`) or the write-up afterwards (`incident-postmortem`).

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。

Write the postmortem for an incident, in its incident channel, once it is mitigated or resolved. Use on "write up this incident", "postmortem", "incident summary", "what happened here for people who weren't around", "draft the retro", or when the oncall memory says incidents of this severity get one. Reads the incident channel (and the alert thread it came from), the investigation findings and the data behind them, and writes a one-screen, zero-context write-up: what happened, impact with numbers, detection, timeline with durations, why it happened, what fixed it, follow-ups with proposed owners, and one before/during/after chart. Posted and pinned in the incident channel as its final pinned post, with edit requests updating that one pinned post in place — unless the person or the team's conventions say write-ups live elsewhere, in which case it is written there and only a link is posted, nothing pinned. A person edits and publishes it; never assigns blame.

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 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.

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。

Triages AWS CloudWatch alarms by correlating alarm state changes with CloudTrail events and EC2 instance health using boto3. Classifies alarms by severity, identifies root cause candidates, and updates OpsGenie alerts.

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。

Expert support operations guidance for customer service excellence. Use when designing ticket management systems, creating SLA policies, building support tier structures (L1/L2/L3), optimizing knowledge bases, defining severity levels and escalation procedures, implementing support metrics (CSAT, FRT, TTR, FCR), configuring support tool stacks, or building support-to-CS feedback loops. Covers Zendesk, Intercom, Freshdesk, and help desk best practices.

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 Codex is already in the attack-path-analysis phase of a security scan or the user explicitly asks to trace a security finding from source to sink and calibrate severity. Do not use as the primary trigger for full PR, commit, branch, patch, or repository scans.

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。

Produces a rigorous, forward-looking technical audit with severity ratings and improvement directions.

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。

Interactive code simulation engine that spawns ghost personas to review your code before it ships. Each ghost walks through your code line-by-line from a different failure perspective: The Adversary (race conditions, double-submit, idempotency), The Enterprise Edge (business logic gaps, multi-currency, B2B tax exemptions, locale), Chaos Monkey (timeouts, partial failures, network partitions, OOM). Produces a chaos timeline, structured bug report with severity ratings, and three resolution tiers (quick fix, robust architecture, generated test suite). Use this skill whenever the user mentions code review, PR review, "find bugs", "what could go wrong", "will this break", "is this safe", "stress test", "edge cases", design review, pre-merge check, dry run, chaos test, or wants a second opinion on any code — even if they don't explicitly ask for "ghost personas" or "simulation". Also trigger when someone pastes a code snippet with any question about its correctness or safety.

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 a repo-root `.editorconfig` to configure free .NET analyzer and style rules. Use when a .NET repo needs rule severity, code-style options, section layout, or analyzer ownership made explicit. Nested `.editorconfig` files are allowed when they serve a clear subtree-specific purpose.

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 CPR/CDR/severity vectors with scenario analysis across interest rate and economic environments. Use when modeling prepayment behavior, projecting default scenarios, or stress testing pool performance.

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。

Token-range severity zones (Green/Yellow/Orange/Red/Critical) with detection checklist, early warning indicators, and corrective routing actions for context window degradation

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。

Act on the findings a review left on a PR or MR: take or decline each by severity, edit the code, one commit, reply. Use when handed a PR or MR URL that has already been reviewed. Edits real 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。

Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants measurable accessibility, performance, responsive, theming, or anti-pattern findings—not when they mainly want an overall UX critique or final visual/detail polish.

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。