993 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Reviews a PR or diff with multi-angle finders and adversarial verification, then reports a findings table, a merge/no-merge recommendation, required followups, and offers to create a follow-up PR. Use when the user types /review-pr [PR# | branch | path].
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。
Read-only code quality audit — scan the current working directory for common issues (bugs, dead code, security hotspots, missing error handling) and return a prioritised findings report. No files are edited. Use when asked to "audit the code", "quick audit", "find issues", "code scan", or "what's wrong with this codebase". (munder-difflin)
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。
Static source-code vulnerability scan. Reads a target directory (and THREAT_MODEL.md if present), spawns parallel review subagents per focus area, and writes VULN-FINDINGS.json + .md for /triage to consume. Read-only — no building, running, or network. For execution-verified crashes, use vuln-pipeline instead. Use when asked to "scan for vulns", "review this code for security issues", "find bugs in <dir>", or as the step between /threat-model and /triage.
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。
This skill should be used when the user asks to "triage a vulnerability report", "assess a CVE", "evaluate a bug bounty submission", "decide if a finding is valid", "review a security finding", "dismiss a vulnerability", "should we fix this CVE", "prioritize a vulnerability report", or needs to determine whether an incoming vulnerability report warrants investigation. Applies 7 brocards (rules of thumb) to systematically accept, dismiss, or request more information on vulnerability reports, or needs to filter raw findings from agentic vulnerability discovery pipelines before human 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。
Builds and queries multi-language source and binary code graphs for security analysis. Includes pre-analysis passes for blast radius, taint propagation, privilege boundaries, entry point enumeration, proxy/unresolved-call tracking, type/reference queries, structural traversal, graph diffs, audit augmentation, declared cross-language/FFI/external links via `.trailmark/links.toml`, and SQL schema graphs. Use when analyzing call paths, mapping attack surface, finding complexity hotspots, enumerating entry points, tracing taint propagation, measuring blast radius, importing SARIF/weAudit/binary findings, linking source graphs across language or RPC boundaries, or building a code graph for audit prioritization. Feature-gate version-specific Trailmark APIs before using them; prefer `trailmark.parse.detect_languages()` or `--language auto` when the target language is unknown or polyglot.
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。
Searches and explores Burp Suite project files (.burp) from the command line. Use when searching response headers or bodies with regex patterns, extracting security audit findings, dumping proxy history or site map data, or analyzing HTTP traffic captured in a Burp project.
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 an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over a Claude Code skill until a review comes back clean, with a cross-round findings ledger, escalation when fixes stop converging, and a mechanical scope guard. Reviews are performed by the plugin-dev skill-reviewer agent. Use to fix skill quality issues, iteratively refine a skill, or resume a loop after an escalation ('fix my skill', 'improve this skill until it passes review', 'skill improvement loop'). NOT for a one-time review — use the plugin-dev skill-reviewer agent directly.
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 an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over any code target — a skill, plugin, module, or directory — using a reviewer the user names: any installed skill or agent. Keeps a cross-round findings ledger, escalates when fixes stop converging, and guards scope mechanically. Use when asked to 'improve this code until review passes', 'run an improvement loop with <reviewer>', or to iterate review-and-fix with a specific reviewer. For skills prefer the skill-improver entry; for a branch prefer pr-improver.
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。
Parses and processes SARIF files from static analysis tools like CodeQL, Semgrep, or other scanners. Triggers on "parse sarif", "read scan results", "aggregate findings", "deduplicate alerts", or "process sarif output". Handles filtering, deduplication, format conversion, and CI/CD integration of SARIF data. Does NOT run scans — use the Semgrep or CodeQL skills for that.
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 an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over the current branch's changes until a PR review comes back clean, scoped mechanically to the directories the branch touched. Reviews are performed by an installed PR-review skill (default: pr-review-toolkit's review-pr). Use to fix review findings on a branch before opening or updating a pull request ('clean up this branch', 'fix this PR until review passes', 'run review-and-fix on my changes'). NOT for a one-time review — run the PR-review skill directly.
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 Semgrep security scan over a codebase: detects languages, selects rulesets, presents the plan for explicit approval, then runs every approved ruleset through scripts/run-scans.sh, which batches the semgrep processes and writes scans.json, and merges the output to SARIF. Supports two scan modes, "run all" for full ruleset coverage and "important only" for security findings at medium-to-high confidence and impact. Uses Semgrep Pro for cross-file taint analysis when it is available. Use when asked to scan code for vulnerabilities, run a security audit with Semgrep, find bugs, or perform static analysis. For the same scan without the approval gate, use the /static-analysis:semgrep-scan 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。
Audit or critique a product flow, journey, workflow, funnel, onboarding path, checkout path, settings path, screen, or multi-step product experience by capturing screenshots first, then reporting UX, design, and accessibility findings inline from that evidence. Use Figma only when the user explicitly asks for a board. Use when the user asks to audit, review, critique, inspect, assess, analyze, evaluate, or give feedback on a product experience.
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。
Inspect a ChatGPT Apps MCP server codebase and generate chatgpt-app-submission.json with app info suggestions, tool hint justifications, test cases, and negative test cases, then report review-check findings and outputSchema warnings for submission 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。
Turn plugin-eval findings into a concrete rewrite brief for a Codex skill. Use when the user already evaluated a skill and now wants Codex to improve it, especially after asking what to fix first.
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。
Build polished analytical reports for executive, product, business, or technical audiences. Use when the task needs a durable answer-first narrative with evidence-backed findings, visuals or tables, caveats, and source context.
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 validation phase of a security scan or the user explicitly asks to determine whether one or more candidate security findings are valid. 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。
Use when the user asks for a deep, exhaustive, multi-pass, or variance-reducing repository-wide or scoped-path Codex Security scan. Run repeated complete independent Standard scans with the Codex Security deep-scan tool, which aggregates their validated findings and prepares the canonical artifacts; then complete the same scan once. Do not use for PRs, commits, branch diffs, or working-tree diffs.
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 finding-discovery phase of a security scan or the user explicitly asks to discover candidate security findings in a repository or code change. 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。
Use only when the user explicitly asks to fix and verify a validated or plausible security vulnerability. Do not use for ordinary bug fixes, correctness or design review findings, general validation, or 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。
Turn vulnerability notes, disclosure reports, PoCs, source code, or Codex Security findings into self-contained, sceptically validated, natural-sounding vulnerability reports. Use for one vulnerability or a disclosure campaign; a Codex Security scan is optional.
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。
Systematically explore and test a web application to find bugs, UX issues, and other problems. Use when asked to "dogfood", "QA", "exploratory test", "find issues", "bug hunt", "test this app/site/platform", or review the quality of a web application. Produces a structured report with full reproduction evidence -- step-by-step screenshots, repro videos, and detailed repro steps for every issue -- so findings can be handed directly to the responsible teams.
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。
Evidence-first pull request judge that reviews a PR and posts one consolidated GitHub review with inline comments via the gh CLI. Runs the repo's own deterministic checks first, researches current official docs before any claim about external libraries or APIs, then reviews correctness, security, structural quality (code judo, spaghetti growth, file-size limits), and AI slop including useless code comments. Every finding must carry evidence, every comment passes a deterministic noise gate before posting, and the verdict (APPROVE, COMMENT, REQUEST_CHANGES) is weighed by findings. Use when asked to review a PR, judge this PR, review this branch or diff before merge, run the-judge, "revise esse PR", "faca o code review", or "julgue esse PR". Do NOT use for reviewing prose or documents, fixing CI failures, resolving merge conflicts, writing the fix itself, or responding to review comments (use gh-address-comments).
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。
OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications 2026 (ASI) classification framework. Use for mapping security findings to standardized risk categories.
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。
Audit work, verify claims with concrete evidence, and explain the result in simple grade-5 language. Use when the user asks to review, audit, check, verify, explain a change, explain a fix, summarize test results, validate whether something works, or translate technical findings into plain language for non-technical readers.
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。