「code mode」の検索結果

Thoroughly verify all code, tables, figures, modeling decisions, and quantitative claims in an academic paper against its source R scripts and output files. Use this skill whenever you need to audit, replicate, or verify an academic research paper - including cross-checking LaTeX tables against R output, validating econometric modeling choices, ensuring sample sizes are consistent, building a verification manifest, and running automated replication tests. Trigger this skill for any mention of: paper verification, replication check, table audit, code-paper consistency, reproducing results, verifying estimates, checking coefficients, or any variant of "does the paper match the 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。

Explicit-only last resort. Draws game art from code, with no image model - pixel sprites from a PixelSpec, flat vector props, UI and icons from portable SVG, rigged characters with planted feet, FX with a JS runtime, seam-proven autotiles, playable top-down layouts with collision, stylized parallax and ambient plate motion - palette-exact, with QA and review sheets. Use only when the user explicitly asks for code-drawn art, or when generate2dmedia route_media.py finds no image or video route (no-route, exit 3). Never the default - image generation (generate2dsprite, generate2dmap, video2dsprite) comes first for characters, props, maps and FX. Not for painterly, detailed or likeness art, HD-2D plates or realistic fire, smoke or water. Always disclose the result as code-drawn.

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。

Survey a whole React codebase as a senior React engineer, using React Doctor's scan as evidence, then produce a prioritized audit and self-contained implementation plans for other agents (or cheaper models) to execute. Read-only on source code — it plans improvements, it does not apply them. Use when the user asks to "improve the React code", "audit this codebase", "make this app faster / more robust", or wants a roadmap of fixes rather than a review of a single diff. For a regression check or a fix-it-now pass, use the `react-doctor` skill instead.

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 when the user is dropping below the higher-level DOCA libraries (doca-rdma / doca-eth / doca-rmax) into the raw-verbs escape hatch — managing QP / CQ / PD / MR / SRQ / AH / CC-group / Ethernet-SQ-RQ primitives inside DOCA Core, porting libibverbs code into the DOCA Core model, capability-querying a specific verb / opcode / WR flag / QP attribute via doca_verbs_query_device, or debugging DOCA_ERROR_* from doca_verbs_* calls. Trigger even when the user does not say "doca-verbs" — implicit phrasings include "raw QP attribute the task API doesn't expose", "keep my ibv_* code next to doca_* on the same QP", "IO_FAILED on WR submit", "QP state transition rejected", "attach a congestion- control group", or "porting my libibverbs code". The skill's first job is to route MOST users back UP to the higher-level library. Refuse and route elsewhere for general doca-rdma / doca-eth / doca-rmax workloads, DOCA install, Core internals, and general libibverbs theory — those belong to other skills.

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。

Guides implementation of code tasks using test-driven development in an Explore, Plan, Code, Commit workflow. Acts as a Technical Implementation Partner and TDD Coach — following existing patterns, avoiding over-engineering, and producing idiomatic, modern 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。

Apply modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities".

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 to extend an existing agent project with memory, app integration, VPC, multi-agent, migration, model, browser, code interpreter, payments, or resource removal. Triggers: "add memory", "remember across sessions", "call agent from app", "invoke agent from code", "agent auth", "streaming", "VPC", "VPC connectivity", "can't reach from VPC", "multi-agent", "A2A", "A2A auth", "orchestrator not delegating", "specialist not called", "migrate Bedrock Agent", "migration issue", "change model", "browser tool", "code interpreter", "delete agent", "tear down", "agentcore remove", "cross-account memory", "add payments capability to my agent", "wire payments plugin", "integrate x402 payments with the agent I'm building", "add MPP payments", "Machine Payments Protocol". External APIs via Gateway: use agents-connect. New project: use agents-get-started. CLI/dev-server errors: use agents-debug. Runtime x402/MPP payments: use agents-pay. Migration-specific Strands vs LangGraph routes here.

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。

Answers questions about Deep Code CLI itself — including features, configuration options, slash commands, Skills, MCP integration, permissions, notifications, session persistence, and troubleshooting. Use this when users ask how to configure or use Deep Code, how to set up an MCP server, configure notifications (such as Slack/Feishu), manage permissions, view available skills, understand slash commands, configure thinking mode, etc.

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。

Train and run models on Tinker (Thinking Machines) — LoRA and full fine-tuning, SFT with correct loss masking, RL/RFT with group-relative advantages and importance sampling, agentic RL over multi-turn tool-using agents, inference via the SamplingClient or the OpenAI-compatible endpoint, checkpoint management and export, every hyperparameter, and cost estimation from the live price table. Use this skill whenever the user mentions Tinker, tinker://, TINKER_API_KEY, console.tinker.ai, or the tinker CLI; wants to fine-tune, SFT, RFT, or RL a model on Tinker; asks about Tinker models, context windows, LoRA rank, sampling params, loss functions (cross_entropy, importance_sampling, ppo, cispo, dro), Datum construction, forward_backward or optim_step; wants to sample from, download, resume, merge, or export a Tinker checkpoint; or asks what a Tinker run will cost. Whenever Tinker work is initialized in a project, this skill also creates a TINKER_PRICING.md there so prices sit next to the training code. Reach for it even on vague asks like "train a model on this data" or "get inference working" when Tinker is the platform in play.

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。

You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and 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。

You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and 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。

Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.

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。

Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user wants to "fix everything", "sweep the codebase", "auto-fix all issues", "clean up the whole project", or asks for a single command that both diagnoses and remediates quality problems. Do NOT trigger for: read-only audits or health reports where the user only wants findings without code changes; single-dimension reviews (use the focused skill instead: brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test); server health checks, HTTP /health endpoints, Kubernetes probes, database health, or application uptime.

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。

Design LLM-as-Judge evaluators for subjective criteria that code-based checks cannot handle. Use when a failure mode requires interpretation (tone, faithfulness, relevance, completeness). Do NOT use when the failure mode can be checked with code (regex, schema validation, execution tests); use `write-code-eval`. To validate an existing judge, use `validate-evaluator`.

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。

Sets up and maintains isolated Claude Code CLI profiles to run Kimi, MiniMax, DeepSeek, GLM, StepFun or Anthropic in separate terminal windows. Use for multi-provider setup, switching models, csk/csd/csg aliases, CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR, or ~/.claude-profiles. Owns profile-drift troubleshooting (missing skills/hooks, symlink drift, settings drift) and context-window setup ([1m] marker vs CLAUDE_CODE_MAX_CONTEXT_TOKENS).

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 a fair, enforceable community moderation policy. Use when standing up or overhauling moderation for a forum, Discord, Slack, subreddit, or any user community. Produces a clear code of conduct with examples, a graduated enforcement ladder tied to specific triggers, an appeals process, moderator guidelines, and the handling for the severe cases (threats, doxxing, brigading) that need immediate action. Governs member conduct in a user community — distinct from [[community-management-playbook]], which manages a brand's own social-media channels (comments, DMs, tone, response templates).

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 AI-authored code for its characteristic failure modes — plausible-but-wrong logic, hallucinated APIs, over-engineering, dead scaffolding, and silent security shortcuts. Use when reviewing an AI-generated or heavily AI-assisted PR, when AI-written code keeps shipping subtle bugs, or when setting review standards for a team using coding agents. Produces a focused review with AI-specific findings, verification steps per risk class, and a team checklist for AI-authored changes. For general PR review use code-review-checklist — this skill covers what that one assumes a human wouldn't do.

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。

Record a decision, document existing code, or file a supplied research material. Modes: document decision (ADR, RFC, or rule), document code (spec, doc, guide, or scenario for existing behavior), document research (only when a finished report or one external material is already in hand). Use for 'we decided', 'record this decision', 'document why we chose X', 'make it our standard', 'draft an RFC', 'should we switch to Y' proposals, 'resolve the RFC', 'we accepted the proposal', 'document the auth module', 'capture how the payment system works', reference material, how-to instructions, or a user flow with examples over an existing spec. Name the type inside the subject to skip the type question. Planning a feature or an intended user journey → /archcore:plan. Checking docs against code or docs health → /archcore: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。

Record a decision, document existing code, or file a supplied research material. Modes: document decision (ADR, RFC, or rule), document code (spec, doc, guide, or scenario for existing behavior), document research (only when a finished report or one external material is already in hand). Use for 'we decided', 'record this decision', 'document why we chose X', 'make it our standard', 'draft an RFC', 'should we switch to Y' proposals, 'resolve the RFC', 'we accepted the proposal', 'document the auth module', 'capture how the payment system works', reference material, how-to instructions, or a user flow with examples over an existing spec. Name any document type inside the subject — journey, prd, idea, or cpat included — to get exactly that type. Planning a feature or an unnamed intended user journey → /archcore:plan. Checking docs against code or docs health → /archcore: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 framing the system and describing the model for an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript — defining system boundaries, components, hierarchical levels, and feedbacks, then choosing, describing, and calibrating the model (process/simulation, whole-farm, bio-economic, agent-based, or integrated assessment). This is the distinctive core of an AgSy paper. Structures the model and system; it does not run code for you.

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 preparing the data, code, and model materials for an Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript. AgSy applies Elsevier's research-data policy, which treats software, code, and models as research data — deposit them in a repository and cite/link them, or state why they cannot be shared. Covers model-description standards and exemptions. Prepares the materials; it does not waive requirements.

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。

Security audit of Solidity code while you develop. Trigger on "audit", "check this contract", "review for security", "loop mode", "run the auditor in loop mode", "run 3 passes". Modes - default (full repo) or a specific filename. Loop mode runs several passes in one scan, each pass told what the earlier ones found, and ends in one combined report; it remembers findings between scans in a ledger.

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。

Three modes for CS-conference papers (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV vision, ACL/EMNLP/NAACL NLP, ICLR/NeurIPS/ICML/AAAI ML). DIRECT-EDIT mode (common): the user describes a change in Chinese or English and the manuscript (LaTeX or Markdown) is edited directly through a CS-venue writing toolkit with author sign-off (use for 改这段 / 把中文想法写成 latex / polish / de-AI / translate / compress a passage). REVIEW mode (occasional, pre-submission): harden the paper through an adversarial courtroom review engine (N holistic domain reviewers / contestability routing / two-sided trial / three-way verdict / clerk-converged multi-round loop) with consensus-gated, author-signed revisions (use for review / critique / 审稿 / 评审 / mock-review). AUTO mode (unattended, opt-in via /goal): run the review-revise loop toward a verifiable goal, applying safe fixes under a drift-bounded policy and queueing risky ones. Resolves all inputs at runtime, no hardcoded paths. Not a from-scratch drafter (use ml-paper-writing) and not an official-venue rebuttal.

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 you need to verify a Simulink model is compatible with SLCI code inspection, or to apply fixes for identified incompatibilities. Checks model configuration, identifies incompatibilities, and explains why each constraint is required for verification. Also invoked by slci-inspection-incompatibility-analysis to fix constraints and obtain compatibility results. Trigger keywords: checkCompatibility, SLCI compatibility, code inspection readiness, Model Advisor compatibility report.

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。