「review」の検索結果

Review code for quality, bugs, and design issues. Use when the user says "review this code", "do a code review", "check this PR", "review this diff", "is this code good", "what's wrong with this code", "code quality check", or pastes code and wants feedback - even if they don't explicitly say "code 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。

Always use this skill before claiming any work is done, fixed, passing, or complete — even if it seems obvious. Also use when receiving code review feedback from any source (human or automated), when finishing a task or major feature, before committing or creating a PR, or when about to express satisfaction with work. Covers three practices: receiving feedback with technical rigor (no performative agreement), triggering code review via /code-review command or cook/fix pipelines, and verification gates (run the command, read the output, then make the claim). Never skip — the cost of false completion claims is higher than the cost of verifying. References: code-review-reception.md, requesting-code-review.md, verification-before-completion.md.

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 for a Salesforce seasonal release — triaging release notes, reviewing Release Updates, opting into Sandbox Preview, and communicating change impact to stakeholders. Triggers: 'upcoming Salesforce release', 'release notes triage', 'Release Updates', 'sandbox preview opt-in', 'release readiness checklist', 'production upgrade date', 'feature impact', 'critical update', 'roll out the Spring release safely', 'is our org ready for the Spring release', 'release update settings metadata', 'FlowSettings release update field', 'release run sheet', 'preview sandbox refresh freeze', 'settings deploy flipped a release update'. Also covers: which Release Updates are deployable as Settings metadata, the release run sheet artefact, and the preview opt-in refresh-date rule. NOT for planning your own release train — use devops/release-management. NOT for user training and go-live comms — use admin/change-management-and-training.

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。

Qualitative quality review of game design documents — answers "is this design good, and does it follow best practices?" — across all three GDD axes: systems, flows, and content types. Fans out adversarial lenses (completeness, clarity, pillar alignment, systems-math, fantasy-delivery, feasibility, scope) plus domain lenses that check it against the game-design rules, each prompted to find problems rather than validate; produces a severity-graded verdict and a two-bucket report (apply-ready fixes vs research), handed to /unikit-gd-apply or /unikit-gd-explore in one move. Scope is inferred: a named system, flow, or content type reviews that document; "all" runs a cross-document review. Use when the user wants a critique, quality judgment, or rules check of the design, e.g. "review the combat GDD", "review the onboarding flow". This is the subjective quality pass — for a mechanical consistency check (numbers, terms, IDs, references matching the registry) use /unikit-gd-verify.

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 adversarially reviewing a document that makes formal or technical claims — math derivations, physics papers, statistical analyses, benchmark reports, whitepapers. Inventories every equation and quantitative claim, verifies each AS NAMED in the text (never a paraphrase or a neighboring statement), and classifies VERIFIED / REFUTED / UNVERIFIABLE / VACUOUS. Triggers on "check this paper", "verify these claims", "is this derivation right", "review this proof", "audit this benchmark", "does the math hold up". For source-code review see code-review-and-quality; for skill/agent library audits see skill-library-review; for content quality scoring see content-ops.

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。

SOLID design review rules (SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP) for code reviews: what counts as a real design finding, what is only taste, how to cite it and how severe it is. Use when reviewing a diff, a pull request or recent changes for design problems, when asked for a "SOLID review", "design review", "is this class doing too much", or when a review checklist asks for SOLID. Pair it with the dry skill for duplication and with owasp-asvs for security.

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。

CEO/founder-mode plan review. Rethink the problem, find the 10-star product, challenge premises, expand scope when it creates a better product. Four modes: SCOPE EXPANSION (dream big), SELECTIVE EXPANSION (hold scope + cherry-pick expansions), HOLD SCOPE (maximum rigor), SCOPE REDUCTION (strip to essentials). Use when asked to "think bigger", "expand scope", "strategy review", "rethink this", or "is this ambitious enough". Proactively suggest when the user is questioning scope or ambition of a plan, or when the plan feels like it could be thinking bigger. Use AFTER a plan exists. For validating the idea itself before planning, use /mk:office-hours 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。

Triage reviewer comments on a GitHub PR with receiving-code-review discipline — verify each against the codebase, then accept/push-back/clarify, and optionally reply in-thread. Use when responding to received PR feedback. NOT for giving a review (see mk:review-pr); NOT for implementing the fixes (hand off to mk:fix).

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。

Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the 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。

Visual Stack's primary tool. Build a UI wireframe and open it in an interactive review workspace where the user comments directly on the page, turning those comments into the next iteration — or point the same workspace at an app that is already running and review the real thing. Use when the user wants a wireframe, UI mockup, screen design or prototype built; wants to review, annotate, mark up or comment on a page, a design, an existing UI, a running app or a website; wants to iterate on a UI; asks to use Visual Stack; or invokes $vstack:review, /vstack:review, or the older /vstack:wireframe.

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 deep, honest peer-review of how someone uses Claude Code by statistically analyzing their local session data (~/.claude/usage-data/ and ~/.claude/projects/). Trigger whenever the user asks to review, analyze, audit, or critique their own Claude Code usage, workflow, habits, or skill level — including phrases like "analyze my cc usage", "review my cc sessions", "peer review my cc workflow", "deeper than /insights", or any ask for an honest audit of their AI workflow. Also covers portfolio/hiring-manager framings (e.g. "portfolio for Anthropic/OpenAI/xAI"), but ALWAYS ask the user in Step 0 which version to build (self / hr / both) before running — never silently produce an HR report, because that version goes to outsiders and needs explicit privacy setup. The HTML report is laid out ledger-first for SELF (opening band, output/team/leak/trend ledgers, then peer review, 9-dim scoring, try-this-week, case study, claim-indexed evidence). The HR variant is a recruiter version v1: identity card, earned badges (threshold-based, earned-only), allowlist-filtered output ledger, one case study, and a methodology & scope disclosure — no scores, no peer-review memo, no charts.

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 an author's manuscript, its argument and paragraph structure, analyze reviewer comments, draft rebuttals, and verify revisions. Use for self-review, structural edit plans, simulated reviewer objections, author responses, revision closure, and submission-readiness assessment. Formal assigned peer review is outside this skill; manuscript edits and final figures/tables use their owning 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。

Post-launch review of a shipped PRD against the brief's success metrics. Did we move the metric? What did the data actually show? Which assumptions held, which broke? Which accepted-gap decisions resolved (confirmed vs. invalidated)? What would we do differently? Triggers on "outcome review", "did it work", "post-launch review", "did we move the metric", "retro the feature", "was it worth it". Produces a Confluence outcome-review page and updates the brief + linked decisions.

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。

Reviews a set of knowledge files or a knowledge base listing and returns a draft hygiene table, one row per file: duplication signals with the matching file, staleness signals, conflicts between files on the same topic with both passages quoted, missing or unverified owners, and one proposed action per file (Keep, Update, Merge into, Retire, Assign owner, Confirm with owner) for the owner to decide. Never edits, merges, moves or deletes a file. Use when the user asks to "review our knowledge base for duplicates", "which KB articles are stale", "find conflicting articles", "which articles have no owner" or "run a hygiene check on these files". Do not use for review-date sweeps of a document library with owner reminders, use sharepoint-review-sweeper instead; for writing one article, use knowledge-article-drafter. 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 a proposal, business case, deck, plan or restructuring paper in character as a Chief Human Resources Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, people and organisation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CHRO review", "what would HR say about this", "pressure-test the people impact" or "prepare this for the people committee". Do not use for the employee representatives' own view of a plan, use works-council-reviewer instead. 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。

Cross-vendor code review: this agent reviews the other agent's diff and the other agent reviews this one's, so the final check always comes from a different model. Verdicts are APPROVE or REQUEST_CHANGES with file:line references. Triggers: "/codex-review", "cross-review this diff", "have the other vendor check this".

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。

Detect review findings that belong in CI/lint/formatter rather than 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。

Run the full implement-review-fix loop using implementer and reviewer personas. Supports effort-based multi-reviewer scaling (1-5 reviewers) with automatic specialization selection. Includes memory-based feedback loop that learns from past review patterns. Loops until all reviewers find 0 issues of any severity.

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 code review for vulnerabilities. Use when asked to "security review", "find vulnerabilities", "check for security issues", "audit security", "OWASP review", or review code for injection, XSS, authentication, authorization, cryptography issues. Provides systematic review with confidence-based reporting.

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。

複数回のフィードバック・複数パートのレビュー結果を統合管理。対応状況を追跡し、重複を排除して優先度順のチェックリストを生成。Use for "track review comments", "merge feedback", "consolidate reviews".

Designer's eye plan review — interactive, like CEO and Eng review. Rates each design dimension 0-10, explains what would make it a 10, then fixes the plan to get there. Works in plan mode. For live site visual audits, use /design-review. Use when asked to "review the design plan" or "design critique". Proactively suggest when the user has a plan with UI/UX components that should be reviewed before implementation. (gstack)

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 focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this over-engineered", "simplify review", or invokes /ponytail-review. Complements correctness-focused review, this one only hunts complexity.

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。

Route a PR review request to the correct tool — code-review plugin (quick parallel scan across all dimensions) or pr-review-toolkit (deep-dive on a specific quality dimension such as type design, error handling, test quality, comments, or simplification). Use when the user asks for a code review, PR review, or mentions a specific quality concern before creating a 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。