411 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Review a Yuzu pull request end to end with a static-first trust gate, isolated dynamic testing, adversarial Kimi/Codex review, a posted verdict, and head-SHA-bound re-review. Use when the user types forms such as "go PR123", "go 123", or "/go PR123"; use `--promote SHA` only after a collaborator accepts the static review of an external fork.
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。
Phase 7 of the SRS workflow. Runs srs_validator.py --dir on the generated SRS files, reports errors and warnings, auto-fixes ERRORs, and outputs a COMPLIANT / PARTIALLY COMPLIANT / NON-COMPLIANT verdict.
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。
Phase 7 of the SRS workflow. Runs srs_validator.py --dir on the generated SRS files, reports errors and warnings, auto-fixes ERRORs, and outputs a COMPLIANT / PARTIALLY COMPLIANT / NON-COMPLIANT verdict.
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。
Produce a researched long-form article from a topic prompt via an orchestrated pipeline - research agent (first-person sources, working-definition gate), narrative-architecture outline, writer/cold-reviewer loop with an explicit ACCEPT/REVISE verdict contract, then a catalog-deslop pass with a regression gate. The orchestrator dispatches subagents only; the writer never judges its own draft. Use when the user says "article factory", "write an article about X", "run the article pipeline", or asks for a researched long-form piece produced end-to-end. For essays and micro posts in the user's own voice without a research stage, use the prose 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。
Adaptive learning for moflo agents via ReasoningBank: trajectory storage, verdict judgment, memory distillation, consolidation, and MMR retrieval. Use when building agents that should improve from experience across runs.
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。
Verify-before-done — exercise the current change end-to-end against its acceptance criteria (the SDD plan's, or the ticket's) and report a per-criterion PASS/FAIL verdict, then record the outcome to memory. This is the concrete action that satisfies moflo's verify-before-done gate (`gates.verify_before_done` / `/flo -v` / `/flo -sd`). Use before `gh pr create` when the change must be proven to work, not just tested in passing. Verifies only — it does not fix; on FAIL it reports the gaps and stops.
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。
Adversarial deliberation process for making decisions. Spawns advocate agents for each option who argue their cases before a judge (you) who renders a verdict.
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。
Coordinates code quality: ln-511 metrics, ln-512 cleanup, inline agent review (Codex + Gemini), ln-513 regression, ln-514 log analysis. Returns quality_verdict + aggregated results.
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 forensically auditing a Claude Code skill/agent/command/workflow library against RULESET.md by a fixed mechanical protocol — probing every file against the mechanically-checkable rules and reporting CONFORMS / VIOLATES / UNVERIFIABLE / N-A counts with quoted evidence. It casts NO judgment and emits NO pass/fail verdict; counts are the headline. Triggers on "investigate the library", "audit against RULESET", "find every violation", "forensic library audit", "evidence-only check". Not for routing/quality/single-responsibility judgment — use skill-library-review. Not the full sharded sweep — use the audit-library command.
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。
Prove — or honestly fail to prove — a specific technical claim: "the fix works", "it's deployed", "the service is running", "the site is done", "there are no vulnerabilities". Atomizes the claim, picks the shortest decisive signal on the evidence ladder, and returns a verdict from a fixed vocabulary (pass / partial / fail / skip) with an explicit coverage boundary. NOT code review, NOT a fix, NOT orchestration — only "what is proven, and what we merely hope". Triggers — "prove it works", "is it really done?", "are you sure?", "we deployed — is it live?", "verify that", "did we actually 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。
Evaluate an incoming workflow upgrade — a skill, MCP server, subagent, library, external service, prompt, or pattern — through one disciplined pipeline before adopting it. Security is a blocking gate. Records every verdict so the same thing is never evaluated twice. Use when considering a new tool from a post, repo, or recommendation. Triggers — "vet this", "should we adopt", "is this safe to install", "evaluate this skill/MCP", "what do you think of this tool".
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。
Scan every open pull request in a GitHub repository, filter to the ones that are genuinely mergeable now, and report a compact verdict with a suggested merge order. Use when the user asks which PRs can be merged, wants an open-PR backlog triaged or reviewed in bulk, asks why a PR is blocked, or wants to clear a queue of stale or bot-reviewed PRs.
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 GitHub PR with a shallow correctness/security/breaking/AI-slop checklist and emits a verdict; optionally posts via gh. NOT for own-diff audit (mk:review); NOT for replying (mk:respond-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。
Structured second-pass reasoning after a review or plan verdict: pre-mortem, inversion, red team, Socratic lens, etc. NOT for initial review (mk:review) or new plans (mk:plan-creator).
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 a raw idea into ONE honest recommendation: interview one question at a time until confirmed, then give a verdict with trade-offs and a checklist. Not for options or debate.
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。
Multi-pass structural code review with adversarial analysis, scope-aware dispatch, adversarial persona passes, and forced-finding protocol. Supports input modes: branch diff (default), PR number (#123), commit hash, pending changes (--pending). Use when asked to "review this PR", "code review", "pre-landing review", "check my diff", or "review #123". Proactively suggest when the user is about to merge or land code changes. NOT for behavioral verification against a running build (see mk:evaluate); NOT for post-implementation simplification (see mk:simplify).
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。
Structured second-pass reasoning after code review or plan evaluation. Offers named reasoning methods (pre-mortem, inversion, red team, Socratic, etc.) to re-examine findings through a specific lens. Use after /mk:review verdict or any time deeper analysis is needed on an existing output. NOT for initial review (see mk:review); NOT for creating implementation plans (see mk:plan-creator).
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。
Analyze external URL to evaluate fit with oh-my-customcode project and auto-create GitHub issue with verdict
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。
Contract document for the binding test verdict file at .claude/state/last_test_result. Format spec for callers (integrate, simplify, chore, the verify-tick worker) that inline the four mechanical operations. Not Skill-tool-invocable.
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。
Oracle-bound spec-review check that every structured Rollout prerequisite binds to an enforcement-type acceptance criterion. A prerequisite whose `enforced-by` is missing, dangling, or points at a non-enforcement AC is a BLOCKER (hard-blocks implementation entry via the checker fan-out verdict); a prerequisite left in free prose is ADVISORY. Read-only. Runs in the spec-review fan-out before implementation.
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。
Workflow Phase 9 — Integration and Verification. Runs the full test suite, stamps the binding verdict at .claude/state/last_test_result, optionally runs a cross-engine smoke check, and writes harness_state so the harness auto-continues or yields. No subagent delegation.
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。
Marc Andreessen-mode decision and productivity skill. A blunt, market-first operator that pressure-tests ideas, ventures, features, and career bets through Andreessen's actual frameworks — market dominates team and product; the only milestone that matters is product/market fit; bias to build over deliberate. Use when the user says 'andreessen', 'pmarca mode', 'should I build this', 'is there a market', 'are we at product/market fit', 'pmf check', 'pressure-test this idea', 'be brutal about this venture', 'market-first take', or wants a no-disclaimers, no-hedging, confidence-leveled verdict on whether something is worth pursuing. Also provides the 3x5-card + Anti-Todo personal productivity routine. Runs on a fixed anti-sycophancy operating prompt: leads with the strongest counterargument, never validates premises, uses explicit confidence levels, never apologizes for disagreeing. Not for polite brainstorming — this skill exists to tell you the market is dead when it is.
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 bilingual, evidence-backed, SIEGER v2 customer intelligence reports for foreign-trade leads. Use when OpenClaw or a sales operator needs claim-level citations, decision gates, an industry-specific analysis lens, a non-fabricated verdict card, and sales angles that require approval before downstream outreach drafting.
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。