「rev」の検索結果

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。

Simulates academic peer review, evaluating papers across Originality, Methodology, Results, and Writing to provide Major/Minor Revision recommendations with actionable feedback. Triggers when a user asks to "review my paper," "simulate peer review," or "give my paper a peer 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。

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。

Turns an access export (accounts, entitlements, grant and last-used dates per system) into a draft access review pack, one section per system owner: who has what, since when, anomalies to confirm and the decision each line needs, with a blank column for the owner's decision. Never decides, revokes or rates access. Use when the user asks to "prepare the access review pack", "split this entitlement export by system owner", "who has access to what in this system", "build the recertification pack from this export" or "draft the access attestation for the owners". Do not use for a single request for a tool or access, use software-request-review 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。

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。

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory, coverage-bounded integrity checks, two-stage peer review, and auditable quality-assurance artifacts. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow, 연구부터 논문까지, 연구 주제 설정부터 논문 완성까지, 논문 전체 워크플로.

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。

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow.

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 for App Store review and prevent rejections. Covers App Store review guidelines, app rejection reasons, PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy privacy manifest requirements, required API reason codes, in-app purchase IAP and StoreKit rules, App Store Guidelines compliance, ATT App Tracking Transparency, EU DMA Digital Markets Act, HIG compliance checklist, app submission preparation, review preparation, metadata requirements, entitlements, widgets, and Live Activities review rules. Use when preparing for App Store submission, fixing rejection reasons, auditing privacy manifests, implementing ATT consent flow, configuring StoreKit IAP, or checking HIG compliance.

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。

Busabase-backed App-in-Skill control-panel/workspace for a deal analyst to model revenue-based-financing (RBF) deals for SME businesses (retail/F&B chain stores). Use when the user invokes $kelly-revshare-simulator or /kelly-revshare-simulator, wants to model a revenue-share or merchant-cash-advance deal, project cash flow and repayment, compute a Cash-Flow Payout Multiple, effective annualized merchant cost, or compare/underwrite multiple financing scenarios. Pure deterministic math, no external calls, no real trading/payment side effects. Scenario create/edit/delete and the underwriting decision are direct writes made by the analyst, not a review/approval queue.

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".

Use when the user wants a code review of an explicit range or set of files — correctness, security, performance, conventions, tests — with stable findings (CR-nnn, BLOCKER..INFO) and rule citations — 'revisar os últimos commits', 'code review da feature X', 'review base..HEAD'. Plans a REPORT-mode review (no code changes, no commit). Do NOT use to fix code (feat-feature / feat-quick), to write tests (feat-test) or for UI/UX design critique.

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。

Escreve ou reescreve copy de páginas de marketing — home, landing page, página de preço, de produto, de funcionalidade, institucional. Use quando o usuário disser "escrever copy", "criar landing page", "reescrever essa página", "preciso de headline", "melhorar o CTA", "copy do site", "texto da home". Para e-mail use copy-email; para anúncio use copy-ads; para revisar texto pronto use copy-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, repair and steward the nightly Codex debt-sweep PR (branch codex/daily-debt/<date>). Judges every commit GOOD / REPAIR / REVERT, triages the bot review findings through /fix, lands one round-1 commit, files follow-up issues, then stewards the PR itself with a 3-round ceiling. Run by the 08:00 UTC cloud routine; also '/debt-review', '/debt-review 1789'.

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。