「rev」の検索結果

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。

Nexscope Ozon product report search: filters Ozon products by multi-dimensional metrics including sales, revenue, sales/revenue growth rate, cart conversion rate, order conversion rate, price, rating, review count, QA count, variant count, page views, gross margin, return/cancellation rate, ad spend share, weight/volume, listing time, brand, seller, fulfillment method, and labels. Returns each product's SKU, title, price (RUB), sales, revenue, lost revenue, conversion rate, rating, reviews, brand, seller, fulfillment method, listing days/months, and complete product report fields. Use for Ozon product selection, competitor product analysis, best-seller mining, price/conversion band filtering. Trigger when the user mentions Ozon product report, Ozon product selection, Ozon product filtering, Ozon product analysis, Ozon best-selling products, Ozon competitor product analysis, Ozon product report, Ozon product screener, filter Ozon products by sales, Ozon best-seller mining, Nexscope Ozon product report. Also trigger when the intent is to filter Ozon products by multiple metrics and view product-level reports, even without explicitly mentioning Nexscope.

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。

Amazon reverse product selection: filter Amazon niches and keywords by 30+ business dimensions (market size & growth, price tiers & share, competition density & top concentration, demographics such as age/gender/income, review highlights & pain points) from a metrics pool aggregated from historical business insight reports. Trigger when users mention reverse product selection, metrics filtering, niche reverse lookup, blue ocean niche discovery, low-competition niche, newcomer-friendly niche, brand-fragmented market, pain-point entry, feature reverse lookup, pricing tier opportunity, demographic-based selection, or similar terms. Even if the user does not explicitly say "reverse product selection," trigger this skill whenever the request involves filtering Amazon niches that match specific business criteria.

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 a human needs to review a Deepline Play result and hand feedback, labels, or approval back to the agent for revision, evaluation, comparison, or bounded iteration. Triggers on “put this run in a Sheet,” “review these results,” “read my feedback,” “make this a standing rule,” “never regress on this case,” “compare these runs,” “keep improving,” or “add the revised run to the same spreadsheet.” Skip ordinary Play authoring or execution with no human review loop, generic spreadsheet work, and one-off CSV export.

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。

Organizes an author’s response to peer review. Extracts every referee and editor point, tags severity and type, orders the revision by dependency, flags defensible pushbacks as questions, and builds a numbered comment → response → location letter whose substantive answers the author writes. Use when the user has referee reports, a revise-and-resubmit decision, or an editor’s letter and wants to plan the revision, draft the response letter, or check that every point was addressed. The reviewer-side twin is journal-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 Incan review/fix loop end to end: review, fix actionable findings, and review again until clean or blocked. Use when the user wants an autonomous review-and-repair pass or says /review-and-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。

Review PyTorch pull requests for code quality, test coverage, security, and backward compatibility. Use when reviewing PRs, when asked to review code changes, or when the user mentions "review PR", "code review", or "check this 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。

Review other contributors' PRs to learn the codebase and build maintainer trust. Guides structured diff reading, helps formulate review comments, and teaches how to distinguish blocking issues from nits. Use when you want to learn a codebase by reviewing PRs, build trust with maintainers before contributing code, or practice code review on OSS repos. Not for reviewing your own PR — use oss-submit-pr 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。

Use when reviewing, debugging, or hardening Shell/Bash scripts in this repo (.github/workflows/*.yml steps, website build scripts, or any *.sh file) or when asked to "review bash", "revisa el script", "shellcheck", or "revisa el pipeline shell". Reviews for robustness, error handling, quoting, portability, injection, and CI-friendliness, and ends with what a CI failure or a hostile input would catch.

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 code review by a fleet of specialized reviewer agents, wants multiple independent reviewer perspectives, or asks to run reviewers in single-pass or iterative fix-until-clean mode. Launches focused subagents for correctness, security, architecture, conventions, simplicity, UX, reliability, telemetry, testing, compatibility, and documentation 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。

On-demand journal peer review simulation expert — supports 7 research paradigms (experimental/computational/empirical_survey/interpretive/mixed_methods/systematic_review/interdisciplinary) with 6-step review workflow, outputting targeted revision suggestions based on journal-specific review standards.

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 receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement, requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims. Essential for subagent-driven development, pull requests, and preventing false completion claims.

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。

Create or review a reusable skill (SKILL.md) that packages a workflow, and decide whether the request should be a skill instead of a prompt, instruction, agent, or hook. Use when creating a new skill, extracting a workflow from a conversation, updating an existing skill, reviewing SKILL.md quality, or fixing weak skill triggering. Triggers on "create skill", "/create-skill", "new skill", "review skill", "fix skill trigger", "SKILL.md", "スキル作成".

Operate a reusable technical book manuscript workspace with writing structure, reader persona SSOT, review rules, and optional Markdown to Re:VIEW/PDF support. Use when organizing a book manuscript repo, defining or reviewing target readers, standardizing chapter/section files, setting writing/review agents, handling publisher proof comments, or assessing an existing writing workspace. Triggers on book writing workspace, reader persona, reader audience, 読者ペルソナ, persona SSOT, technical book project, 執筆ワークスペース, manuscript workflow, Re:VIEW workspace, proof PDF, annotated proof, publisher proof comments, 校正, 校正注釈, and 初校.

Evaluate and review GO-CAM (Gene Ontology Causal Activity Model) activities / annotons — molecular-function typing, has-input, causal relations, complexes, evidence — and check their consistency with gene annotation reviews. Use when reviewing cached GO-CAMs under gocams/, filling a GoCamReview YAML (gocams/<id>/<id>-review.yaml), or grounding a module in GO-CAM models.

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 audio DSP and audio processing code for realtime safety violations. Use whenever the user asks to review, audit, or check audio processing code — including plugin process callbacks, audio engine render functions, DSP implementations, or any code that runs on the audio thread. Trigger on phrases like "review my processBlock", "check this DSP code", "is this safe for the audio thread?", "review my JUCE plugin", or when you see an audio callback and spot potential realtime violations. Flag issues proactively even when the user hasn't explicitly asked for a 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。

Pre-commit code quality review for Unity C# code. Checks against Rules, CODING_STANDARDS.md, NAMING_CONVENTIONS.md, and GDD Gherkin test coverage. Use when code has been written and tests are passing but before committing. Runs automatically at Step 8.5 of /uw-cmd-implement-feature. Triggers on "review this code", "check my implementation", "pre-commit review", "code review", "check before commit", "is this ready to commit", "review my changes", or any request to validate code quality before committing.

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-focused code review identifying high-confidence exploitable vulnerabilities with two-axis severity/confidence scoring, OWASP 2025 alignment, per-finding Haiku verification, and false positive filtering. Optional GitHub PR posting. Use when user runs /security-review, /review:security-review, requests a "security review", "security audit", "vulnerability scan", or mentions "find vulnerabilities", "check for exploits".

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 literature review. Use when the user says "literature review", "lit review", "review the literature", "summarize prior research", "what does the research say about", "synthesize research on", "background section", "related work section", "what has been studied on this topic", or needs to systematically identify, synthesize, and critically evaluate existing research on a topic - even if they don't explicitly say "literature 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。

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。