「reviewer」の検索結果

Extract and analyze writing improvements from GitHub PR review comments. Use when asked to show review feedback, style changes, or editorial improvements from a GitHub pull request URL. Handles both explicit suggestions and plain text feedback. Produces structured output comparing original phrasing with reviewer suggestions to help refine future writing.

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。

ACTIVATES ONLY on an explicit user request for the ulw-plan workflow: the user themselves saying ulw-plan, ulw plan, /skill:ulw-plan, or asking in their own words for a work plan before coding. NEVER self-activates: a bare ulw/ultrawork run, an agent-side routing decision, or reading this file is not a request, and the plan-gated reviewers (metis/momus) stay locked without a user request plus a written .omo/plans plan file. Explore-first planning consultant (Prometheus) that grounds in the codebase, asks only the forks exploration cannot resolve - or researches them to best practice when the intent is fuzzy - waits for explicit approval, then writes ONE decision-complete work plan a worker executes with zero further interview. Triggers: ulw-plan, ulw plan, plan this, make a plan, plan before coding, interview me, break this down, start planning, plan mode.

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 gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed 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。

Review-feedback handling route for CodeRabbit, GitHub, PR, or human reviewer comments. Use before implementing suggestions to verify each finding. Do not use for a fresh code review, security audit, TDD, or final completion evidence.

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 and request a code review after implementation or before merge by assembling scope, requirements, git range, and reviewer instructions.

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。

Default code-quality route for broad code review, PR review, maintainability, correctness, and regression-risk checks. Do not use as the primary route for dedicated OWASP/security audits, review-feedback handling, completion verification, AI-code cleanup, or TDD/test-first 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。

Split a PR into multiple PRs to reduce the number of required CODEOWNERS reviewer groups.

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。

Submit one node result to the assigned Reviewer and finish only after a bounded pass/rework chain.

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。

[omh] Ambitious project goal needing many build cycles: agentic interviewer -> planner -> researcher -> builder -> reviewer cycles until a real gate. Use when the user says: loop, goal loop, long horizon goal, never stop, research plan goal feedback, token exhaustion resume, permission profile, star 10k.

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 asked to review a PR, run a code review loop, or invoke the ralph reviewer against a pull request number or GitHub URL

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。

Critically review strategy drafts from edge-strategy-designer for edge plausibility, overfitting risk, sample size adequacy, and execution realism. Use when strategy_drafts/*.yaml exists and needs quality gate before pipeline export. Outputs PASS/REVISE/REJECT verdicts with confidence scores.

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 skills in any project using a dual-axis method: (1) deterministic code-based checks (structure, scripts, tests, execution safety) and (2) LLM deep review findings. Use when you need reproducible quality scoring for `skills/*/SKILL.md`, want to gate merges with a score threshold (for example 90+), or need concrete improvement items for low-scoring skills. Works across projects via --project-root.

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。

Skill that analyzes 18-month scenarios from a news headline. Runs the primary analysis with the scenario-analyst agent and obtains a second opinion with the strategy-reviewer agent. Generates a comprehensive English report covering 1st/2nd/3rd-order impacts, recommended stocks, and a critical review. Example: /scenario-analyzer "Fed raises rates by 50bp" Triggers: news analysis, scenario analysis, 18-month outlook, medium-to-long-term investment strategy

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。

Have Codex independently review an existing implementation plan while Claude coordinates a bounded revision loop. For automatic reviewer selection from either host, use claudex-loop with mode=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。

Have Codex implement a concrete work order and have Claude independently inspect the final changes. Preserves the explicit Codex builder choice; use claudex-loop for host-based planning and automatic reviewer selection.

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。

当用户明确要求"评审国自然标书"、"模拟专家评审"、"审阅 NSFC 申请书"时使用。模拟领域专家视角对 NSFC 标书进行多维度评审，输出分级问题与可执行修改建议。⚠️ 不适用：用户只是想写/改标书某个章节（应使用 nsfc-*-writer 系列技能）、只是想了解评审标准（应直接回答）、没有明确"评审/审阅"意图。

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。

Discipline for the seam between two SDKs (or two sides of one contract) that the same hand writes. The failure mode: "we own both sides" produces dirty contracts no foreign reviewer would accept. The exercise: pretend the other side is FFI, IPC, or a network protocol you cannot rewrite. Spawn an adversarial subagent profiled as the producer's maintainer; negotiate the change as a feature request, not a PR. Companion to $sdk-design. Language-agnostic — applies to a TS package + its consumer, a Rust crate + its WASM binding, two services sharing a wire format, or any other boundary the same author writes both ends of.

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。

Pre-PR discipline for a public-by-default repo. What a reviewer enforces beyond CI: secrets and internal data in diffs or screenshots, docs that name their reader, and the cleaning pass where incomplete or confusing artifacts get dropped. Use before opening any PR against `gridaco/grida` or when finalizing work for 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。

Role profile — a reviewer who is fact-seeking, bedrock-seeking, honest, and rejecting. Demands that arguments rest on small facts that cannot be wrong (not on stacked assumptions dressed up as foundation), and that deliberately-unclear concepts be quarantined — never leaked into solid layers, never mixed with each other. Catches the failure mode where designs ship after partial grounding: most of the spec researched, the design feels finished, and the unresearched remainder holds the deal-breaker. Invoke with `/pedantic <target>` (e.g. `/pedantic review this design doc`, `/pedantic review the SDK design`, `/pedantic review this PR`). Probes cover logical structure (definitions, assumptions, boundaries, contradictions, unfalsifiability, vague quantifiers, counterexamples), epistemic honesty (researchable vs. discoverable-only-by-doing), bedrock integrity (assumed-bedrock, leaked uncertainty, mixed unclarity), and design pathology (YAGNI, wrong-layer abstraction, unclear responsibility, fragmentation, over-engineering). Use when you want a hard critique of a plan, design doc, technical doc, code change, or PR description — not a copy edit, not a vibe check.

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。

Delegate a coding task to Muse Code (`muse`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Muse — phrasings like "have Muse do X", "delegate this to Muse", "run it through Muse", or "use Muse to implement/fix/refactor" — or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through Muse while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. It applies only when the user wants that separate `muse exec` implementer run: if you are Muse yourself and the user simply asks you to write the code, do it directly. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline.

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。

Delegate a coding task to the Warp Agent CLI (`oz`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Warp - phrasings like "have Warp implement X", "delegate this to the Warp CLI", "run it through Warp", "use oz to implement/fix/refactor" - or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through Warp while staying the reviewer. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, when the user wants the code written directly without delegating, or for the interactive `warp` TUI (this skill drives the headless `oz agent run`, not the terminal app).

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。

Delegate a coding task to the OpenAI Codex CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Codex — phrasings like "have Codex do X", "delegate this to Codex", "run it through Codex", or "use Codex to implement/fix/refactor" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Codex while staying the reviewer. Prefer it over a one-shot Codex forwarder (such as the codex-rescue agent) when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

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。

Delegate a coding task to Oh My Pi (`omp`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to delegate implementation work to Oh My Pi / omp - phrasings like "have omp implement X", "delegate this to oh my pi", "run it through omp", "use oh-my-pi to implement/fix/refactor" - or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through omp while staying the reviewer. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, when the user wants the code written directly without delegating, or when they mean the original Pi CLI (`pi`) — that is pi-delegate.

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。

Delegate a coding task to the Mistral Vibe CLI (`vibe`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Vibe — phrasings like "have Vibe implement X", "delegate this to Vibe", "run it through Mistral Vibe", "use vibe to implement/fix/refactor" — or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through Vibe while staying the reviewer. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

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。