「view」の検索結果

Phase 4 of the feature-pipeline suite. Use this after /fp-review has posted a sandbox review comment — it reads the outstanding checkbox items, applies fixes, then watches CI until green (or exits cleanly so you can retry). Trigger phrases: "address review items", "fix review feedback", "resolve review checklist", "watch CI", "poll CI", "check if CI is green", "iterate on PR", "fp-iterate", "Phase 4", "after review comment", "fix the review issues and watch CI". Always bounded — max 10 poll rounds, never loops forever. Exits with a clear status: green (hands off to /fp-drift), still-pending (re-invoke), or failed (diagnose before touching anything).

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。

Code review by several models at once — Claude sub-agents, OpenAI Codex, and a cheap third reviewer via OpenCode — reconciled into one report. Reviews whatever is named: a diff, a branch, specific files, one function, a legacy module, a whole repo. Use for any review request, a second or third opinion, a cross-check before a PR, or "code-review", "multi", "consensus 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。

Runs a single Copilot review check-fix cycle on a PR using gh CLI. Use this skill whenever the user wants to: check and fix Copilot review comments, request a Copilot code review on a PR, or iterate on PR feedback. Trigger on phrases like 'copilot review', 'fix PR comments', 'iterate on PR', 're-review', or when the user mentions 'gh pr' with 'copilot'. Combine with /loop for automated repeated cycles, e.g. '/loop 2m /copilot-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。

Use when the user asks for general frontend code review, PR review, merge-readiness assessment, architecture maintainability, type-safety, rendering/state risks, style consistency, testability gaps, or a cross-cutting review summary. Delegate deep security, accessibility, E2E, or performance investigations to their specialized skills; Chinese triggers include code review, code review, 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。

Multi-agent review resolution with trust-but-verify methodology. Accepts a PR number/URL or a local code-review report file. Extracts review comments, verifies each with parallel agents using confidence scoring (0-100), filters false positives, presents a triage report for approval, then applies fixes and replies. Use when user runs /resolve-review, mentions "resolve PR comments", "address review feedback", "fix PR suggestions", "handle review comments", or "resolve review 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。

Creates GitHub Pull Requests with existing PR detection, branch pushing, and intelligent title/body generation. Use when user requests to create pull request, open PR, update PR, push for review, ready for review, send for review, get this reviewed, make a PR, share code, request review, create draft PR, submit for review, run /create-pr command, or mentions "PR", "pull request", "merge request", "code review", "GitHub PR", or "draft".

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。

Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quality. Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass.

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。

Professional code review craft: review strategy, feedback that lands, reviewer efficiency, and team review culture. Use when reviewing code or improving a team's review process.

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-implementation review orchestrator. Launches 5 parallel background sub-agents: Oracle (goal/constraint verification), Oracle (code quality), Oracle (security), unspecified-high (hands-on QA execution), unspecified-high (context mining from GitHub/git/Slack/Notion). All must pass for review to pass. MUST USE after completing any significant implementation work. Triggers: 'review work', 'review my work', 'review changes', 'QA my work', 'verify implementation', 'check my work', 'validate changes', 'post-implementation 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。

Perform a code review on {{engine_name}} {{engine_code_language}} code. Checks for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and best practices against the project's coding rules, design principles, and framework-specific conventions. Supports four modes — staged changes, a pull request, a commit range, or individual files. Use when the user says "review code", "check my code", "code review", "review PR", "review staged changes", "review these commits", or "is this code okay". Optional +check flag validates findings via a fresh-context subagent.

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。

One-command pre-execution review pipeline. Runs scope review → architecture review → security review → design review (auto-detects which apply) before executing any workflow. Surfaces only taste decisions for user approval. Auto-fixes obvious issues. Use before executing multi-step workflows, deploying, or when user says "review this plan", "check before running", "pre-flight", or "is this ready?". Runs CEO → eng → security automatically with encoded decision principles.

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 recording, tallying, or triaging stochastic review findings — the append-only JSONL ledger where Tier 2 (advisory, unevidenced) reviewer output goes instead of blocking language. Triggers on "log this finding", "ledger add", "tally the findings", "triage findings", "is this finding recurring", "retire this noise", or whenever a reviewer produces an unevidenced concern that should be measured for recurrence rather than chased. For the review itself see code-review-and-quality or skill-library-review; for verifying formal claims with deterministic evidence see adversarial-claims-reviewer.

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。

Designs and orchestrates a realistic interview simulation platform with voice AI, whiteboard evaluation, gaze-tracking proctoring, and mobile spaced repetition. Use for building mock interview infrastructure, configuring sessions, and adaptive difficulty. Activate on "interview simulator", "mock interview", "practice session", "voice mock". NOT for individual round-type coaching, resume writing, or prep timeline coordination.

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。

Prepare for Anthropic-specific technical interviews covering Constitutional AI, RLHF, interpretability, scaling laws, MCP, agentic systems, and AI safety. Activate on "anthropic interview", "constitutional AI prep", "alignment interview", "safety interview", "RLHF opinion", "interpretability prep", "anthropic technical". NOT for general ML interview prep, system design interviews, coding challenges, or behavioral interview practice.

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。

反復レビュー・ループ(codex-review-loop・fable-review-loop・opus-review-loop)が共有する判断ロジックの正本。起動可否ゲート・レビュアーの正体に依存しない大前提・常設観点・レビュー依頼に含める内容と含めてはならない内容・照合仕分け・終了判定・報告を定義する。内部専用でユーザーが直接使うものではない。

Finalize an implemented rolling-wave slice for user review. Use when the user wants Codex to review the current branch state against a ready-for-review or in-review slice contract, confirm and fix required findings, repeat review and verification until no required findings remain, ask before accepting findings that materially change project shape or contradict project assumptions, record review state, and leave the clean slice in review for complete-slice.

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。

Front-end conventions review for Vue surfaces — the component-usage analog of /a11y, pointed at Nuxt UI 4 + crouton conventions instead of WCAG. Reviews just your diff (or a package/file) for v3 component names, the v4 overlay pattern, Options API, raw-HTML re-implementations, and hardcoded colors; rates findings by severity; and either comments inline on the PR (--comment) or applies the safe fixes for you (--fix). Steers the depth-aware `frontend-review` subagent. Use when asked to "check the frontend", "are we using Nuxt UI right", "review component usage", "frontend-review this", or run /frontend-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。

Quality review of a change: is the logic right, is it safe, does it hold under real load, is risky code tested, is it fast enough, and is every line needed. Reads the connected code, not only the diff. Each finding is explained in plain English. Use for "review this", "code review", "review the last commit", "review my PR", "is this over-engineered", /ponytail-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。

Use this skill for critical code review that focuses on whether the code actually works correctly and achieves the expected results - not just whether it matches a design document. This skill assumes designs can be wrong, finds bugs the design didn't anticipate, and verifies end-to-end correctness. Triggers include "critical code review", "deep code review", "verify this implementation works", "find bugs in this code", or reviewing implementation against requirements. NOTE - Security review is OUT OF SCOPE; use a dedicated security review skill for that 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。

Work the review of a research run with rs_review — read the manuscript and record the panel's concerns with the evidence that grounds each one, keep the author's reply and the re-review's finding in their separate columns, run the devil's advocate with the concession threshold the tool enforces, and write the panel report and traceability matrix a response-to-reviewers letter is built from. Use when a document is ready for review, when a concern has to be answered or re-reviewed, or when an attack or a concession is being recorded.

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。

A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design. Use when the user says "grill me", "grill mich", "grill mich zu diesem Plan", or explicitly invokes /grill-me. Does NOT fire on generic "review this", "poke holes", "stress-test", "devil's advocate" or "critique" phrasing -- for reviewing an already-written artifact (code, PR, paper) use code-review, 3agenten-review, 7phasen-review or caveman-review instead; grill-me interrogates a still-open plan or idea before it is built.

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 a DRAFT structured interview scorecard from a job description: five to eight competencies traced to it, past-behaviour and situational evidence questions with probes, four-level rating anchors written as observable behaviours, a blank scoring sheet, a panel plan and the items the hiring manager must confirm. Use when the user asks to "build an interview scorecard for this job description", "write competency questions for this role", "draft the interview guide for the panel", "set up a rating scale for the interviewers", "put together a structured interview kit" or "create a hiring rubric from the JD". Do not use for writing or fixing the job description itself, use job-description-drafter instead; for the new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。

Reviews one employee software request (tool, purpose, users, data handled, cost, urgency) against the approved-tools list and the policies the user provides and returns a draft review for the reviewer: match state on the list with the row quoted, approved tools the list itself describes as covering the same need, policy clauses that bear on the request with quoted text, questions for the requester and the reviewer, and one suggested decision with its basis. Never approves, procures, installs or adds a tool to the list. Use when the user asks to "review this software request", "is this tool on the approved list", "check this request against our software policy", "do we already have something approved that does this" or "prepare the decision note for this tool request". Do not use for a full vendor security assessment, use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead; for sorting mixed requests, use request-intake-triage. 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。

Drafts a DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. 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。