「defects」の検索結果

Audit websites, apps, screenshots, mockups, and design code for harmful AI-design clichés, generic generated defaults, and established UI defects. Use when the user wants evidence-backed design feedback, an anti-slop review, or a removal-first cleanup plan without a speculative redesign.

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。

Prevent and remove generic AI-generated design defaults, incoherent visual choices, and established UI defects while creating, revising, or reviewing websites, apps, screenshots, mockups, and design code. Use as a passive quality gate during UI work or for an explicit anti-slop cleanup; preserve the chosen art direction instead of forcing a neutral redesign.

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 changes for concrete defects.

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 C# and .NET requests to the exact installed specialist or smallest dotnet/skills marketplace plugin. USE FOR: "which specialist should own this" or "how do I add the skill" requests involving ASP.NET Core endpoints, Blazor, MAUI binding, Windows Forms specialist selection or installation, EF Core queries, test or framework migration, runtime CPU/allocation evidence, file-based C#, editor/compiler defects, a surviving MSBuild `.binlog`, or a plugin missing from `/skills`; also use for C# semantics when no narrower specialist exists. DO NOT USE FOR: requests that already name the exact installed specialist to invoke, or work unrelated to C# or .NET.

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。

DO NOT INVOKE when the primary request explicitly asks to convert, migrate, modernize, or rewrite a legacy/old-style project to SDK style; use msbuild-modernization. Migration prompts often mention ToolsVersion, explicit Compile/Reference entries, packages.config, or Microsoft.CSharp.targets, but merely reviewing or auditing a file that contains those patterns remains in scope here. USE FOR broad review, audit, lint, or maintainability/correctness checks of project/build files, including custom targets; prioritized cross-cutting findings; discrete anti-patterns; F# ordering/FS0039; cross-platform paths; and focused Import safety verdicts. Review/audit is analysis-only unless fixes are requested. For concrete property/item defects use property-patterns/item-management; use target-authoring for implementation and extension-points for NuGet auto-import/layout discovery. Exclude non-MSBuild systems.

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。

Contribute a verified bug fix for LazyCodex, lazycodex-ai, omo-codex, bundled Codex skills, or upstream Codex CLI bugs. Opens a fork PR only for upstream openai/codex; LazyCodex-owned defects become a verified-fix issue on code-yeongyu/lazycodex (never a PR — that repo is a generated distribution mirror). Use when the user asks to fix a bug, contribute a bug fix, contribute to fix bug, open a PR for a bug, or debug and PR a LazyCodex/Codex defect.

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。

Builds quality into operations — defining standards, catching defects at the right point, root cause analysis, and continuous improvement. Use this to reduce a defect or error rate, design quality controls into a process, run a root cause analysis, respond to a customer quality complaint, or set up quality metrics that drive behavior.

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。

The period feel comes from camera defects and one tiny everyday incident. Write the camcorder's autofocus hunting, exposure shifts and handheld shake as an explicit list, keep the story small, and the clip reads as a real old tape. Use when the user wants a Seedance 2.5 / 2.0 video prompt for this kind of clip (Early-2000s DV home video; 中文触发词: 早年 DV 家庭录像, DV, 家庭录像, VHS, 复古, 年代感), or asks how published cases of this type were prompted. Read references/cases.md before 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。

Findings-first code review workflow for AI coding agents. Use when the user asks to review uncommitted changes, commits in a date range, or a branch compared to the main branch / PR-style diff. Focuses on bugs, regressions, correctness risks, missing tests, security/data-safety issues, and other behavior-changing defects.

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 debugging methodology using hypothesis-driven investigation, log analysis, and bisection to isolate and resolve defects.

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 that the file you are about to send, publish, or hand off IS the thing you mean — before it leaves your hands. Rebuild from source, check integrity, diff the derived artifact against its source, and require the recipient to echo what they received. Use before sending a paper/PDF for review, shipping a release or replication package, handing files to a coauthor or collaborator, uploading anything to an external reviewer or model, or publishing. Prevents an entire review/QA cycle from being spent on defects that exist only in the artifact, not in the work.

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。

Audits already-rendered UI and Markdown/Obsidian image layout — web app, deck/slide, dashboard, design-system, or Electron/native app — via real-browser/native-app journeys and a Playwright sweep. Use after UI implementation to find typography, overflow, responsive, routing, data-viz, browser-output, or native-shell defects, or to compare a render against a reference. Not for greenfield UI design (use ui-designer) or QA-program setup (use qa-expert).

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。

Trigger: RDD, receipt-driven development, review authority, receipt/lineage, correction/recovery, delivery gate/kill switch, bounded review defects. Guide work.

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 the unprimed sub agent as a second set of eyes before accepting visual work — MANDATORY before declaring any user-reported visual bug fixed or claiming a visual change verified; primed eyes pass defects fresh eyes 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 asked to run Design Error Detection (quick defect scan), find design errors in a Simulink model, perform root cause analysis on DED findings, fix division-by-zero, overflow, dead logic or out-of-bounds defects detected by SLDV, or diagnose why missing coverage cannot be achieved (dead logic blocking coverage objectives). Do NOT use for requirement verification, test generation, Inf/NaN detection, active logic analysis, or coverage measurement.

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 completed mediation-competition problems consisting of general information and confidential packets for both sides. Use when asked to validate, audit, score, quality-control, or assess competition readiness; identify factual, numerical, chronological, authority, commercial-logic, or confidentiality defects; test mediation usefulness, BATNAs, settlement corridors, information asymmetry, and opportunities for firmness, cooperation, imagination, and clarification; or produce an author-only validation report. Perform a qualified partial review when packets are missing. Diagnose by default; do not generate a new problem or edit source packets unless repairs are expressly requested. Requires access to all supplied files and a host capable of reading their formats; otherwise disclose the unreviewed material and resulting limits.

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。

Identify error-prone APIs, dangerous configuration, and footgun designs that enable security mistakes. Use for API ergonomics, misuse resistance, secure defaults, or pit-of-success reviews; use code-review for general defects.

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。

Precision-first adversarial bug hunting for runtime, logic, data, concurrency, and security defects. Uses deterministic risk triage, evidence-bounded retrieval, Hunter/Skeptic/Referee review, optional hybrid verification, and explicit immutable Fixer scope. Scan-only and single-pass by default; complete-coverage loops, edits, autonomous fixes, and commits each require explicit intent. Use for code review, security audits, regression hunting, PR review, and evidence-backed remediation planning in skills-capable coding agents.

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 C# and .NET requests to the exact installed specialist or smallest dotnet/skills marketplace plugin. USE FOR: "which specialist should own this" or "how do I add the skill" requests involving ASP.NET Core endpoints, Blazor, MAUI binding, Windows Forms specialist selection or installation, EF Core queries, test or framework migration, runtime CPU/allocation evidence, file-based C#, editor/compiler defects, a surviving MSBuild `.binlog`, or a plugin missing from `/skills`; also use for C# semantics when no narrower specialist exists. DO NOT USE FOR: requests that already name the exact installed specialist to invoke, or work unrelated to C# or .NET.

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。

DO NOT INVOKE when the primary request explicitly asks to convert, migrate, modernize, or rewrite a legacy/old-style project to SDK style; use msbuild-modernization. Migration prompts often mention ToolsVersion, explicit Compile/Reference entries, packages.config, or Microsoft.CSharp.targets, but merely reviewing or auditing a file that contains those patterns remains in scope here. USE FOR broad review, audit, lint, or maintainability/correctness checks of project/build files, including custom targets; prioritized cross-cutting findings; discrete anti-patterns; F# ordering/FS0039; cross-platform paths; and focused Import safety verdicts. Review/audit is analysis-only unless fixes are requested. For concrete property/item defects use property-patterns/item-management; use target-authoring for implementation and extension-points for NuGet auto-import/layout discovery. Exclude non-MSBuild systems.

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。

Investigate customer-impacting OpenAI Ruby SDK defects and privately handled security risks, then dispatch at most five evidenced, independent fixes to isolated project worktrees.

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 a user-provided Chinese mathematical-modeling abstract without requiring the problem statement or full paper, identify concrete writing defects, and prioritize revisions. Use when the user asks to check, diagnose, or improve a modeling-paper abstract; do not claim coverage or factual consistency that cannot be verified without the problem or paper.

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。

Execute multi-level exploratory testing of the app covering basic functionality, complex operations, adversarial testing, and cross-cutting scenarios, plus usability observations through a UX lens reported separately from defects. Deeper than $smoke-test. Use when the user asks to "exploratory test", "test thoroughly", "test all scenarios", "deep test", "test edge cases", "test everything", "break it", "find bugs by testing", "test usability", or "check the UX while testing".

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。

Execute multi-level exploratory testing of the app covering basic functionality, complex operations, adversarial testing, and cross-cutting scenarios, plus usability observations through a UX lens reported separately from defects. Deeper than /smoke-test. Use when the user asks to "exploratory test", "test thoroughly", "test all scenarios", "deep test", "test edge cases", "test everything", "break it", "find bugs by testing", "test usability", or "check the UX while testing".

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。