「independent review」の検索結果

Independently review a CUMCM computation package before its claims enter validation or paper writing. Use only inside a generated independent-review package.

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。

Prepares a focused code review request for a branch, commit, pull request, or substantial working-tree diff by defining the review boundary, contract, risk areas, evidence, and questions for an independent reviewer. Use before merge or when another agent needs to review an implementation. Not for processing feedback already received or for claiming runtime correctness.

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 with several independent reviewers in parallel, then triage and present the findings. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code"

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 3 of the feature-pipeline suite. Run this after /fp-implement has pushed all commits and printed the M2 stop hook. Spawns a sandboxed sub-agent (HEAVIER) in an isolated worktree to run RED/GREEN tests against the PR diff and post a structured review comment. Use when you need an independent agent to verify correctness of implementation changes before CI runs — especially for schema mutations, CLI surface changes, or doc-touching commits. Triggers on: "review the PR", "run sandbox review", "fp-review", "Phase 3", "check the implementation", "validate the changes", "run tests on the PR", or any instruction to verify what /fp-implement just pushed.

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。

Consult Claude Code from Codex for a second opinion while Codex remains responsible for implementation and verification. Use when the user asks Codex to collaborate with Claude, consult Claude, ask Claude for a plan, get a Claude review, delegate analysis to Claude, or says "Claudeと一緒に", "Claudeに相談", "Claudeにレビューしてもらう", "Claudeの意見も聞く", or "Claudeと計画を立てる". Also use when an explicit independent planning or review pass from Claude would materially reduce risk on a complex coding task.

OpenClaw全体の品質検証を継続し、不具合の再現から根本原因の修正、レビュー、反映確認まで進めます。実環境や負荷の検証結果を、再開可能な報告書に記録します。

• OpenClawの複数領域の不具合調査
• 回帰テストと独立レビューで修正を検証
• 実接続・UI・配布物の動作確認

AIエージェントの反復作業を設計・点検し、機械で判定できる完了条件、変更禁止の境界、独立した検証、再試行上限を定めて空回りや暴走を防ぐスキル。

• 反復作業の完了条件を定めたいとき
• 空回りや検証の抜け道の点検
• 計画・実装・検証の役割分担

Design a coherent assessment-and-practice lesson using zone-of-proximal-development principles: independent diagnosis, targeted review, supported practice, fresh independent checks, and an evidence-based next step. Use for 习题课（最近发展区）, 最近发展区, 测验习题课, diagnostic review lessons, or guided-to-independent practice. Can also run one practice cycle in chat; do not turn a request for a single exercise or theory explanation into a full lesson.

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 PR the way a seasoned maintainer would — build an independent model before seeing the diff, investigate the implementation and history, verify material claims, and return a concise briefing. Use for any PR review, self-review, or re-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。

Have Codex independently review an existing implementation plan while Claude coordinates a bounded revision loop. For automatic reviewer selection from either host, use claudex-loop with mode=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 adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified", "is this actually done", "maker checker", "second pair of eyes on this change". Not for prose, docs or typo edits.

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。

Lightweight standalone design spec for AI coding agents: codebase scan → bounded clarify pass (3–5 questions, not a grill) → reviewed design doc written to docs/plans/ → independent scored review → stop. No task board, no build. Use when you want a spec to discuss, hand off, or review before committing to implementation. Chains into absolute-work when ready to build. Triggers on "absolute spec", "write a spec", "spec out this feature", "draft a design doc", "I want a spec to hand off / review, don't build it yet".

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, correctness, and fit. Use when the user wants judgment on code that already exists — their own changes, a teammate's patch, a PR, branch, commit, diff, staged changes, or one or more files to look over. Activate on requests like review, look over, sanity check, critique, code review, or 'is this good?' The key signal is that the user wants evaluation of existing code and its tradeoffs, not implementation, debugging, or explanation. This skill works independently, but when plans, specs, task artifacts, or prior discussion exist, use them to understand why the code exists before judging it.

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 pull request or focused branch diff for correctness, regressions, security, compatibility, test gaps, and maintainability. Use when an implementation needs an independent source-aware review before merge. Produces prioritized findings with evidence and actionable fixes. Not for architecture-only audits, formatting preferences, or processing existing review feedback.

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。

Independent re-derivation gate for proposed changes during autonomous execution. Evaluates a change (code diff, config edit, engine evolution, schema change) against the work's authority matrix and a 4-check protocol: invariant compliance, scope authorization, detection narrowness, and regression risk. Returns structured JSON with pass/fail per check, an overall verdict (APPROVE / REQUEST_CHANGES / REJECT), and blockers. Profile-driven thresholds (strict for unattended runs, lenient for desk supervision). Use when an autonomous agent proposes an engine change, when reviewing a Claude Code-authored modification before merge, or when an unattended profile requires independent re-derivation. Trigger on: "review/approve this proposed change," "critic-gate this," "is this change safe," "is this safe to merge," "should I let this land," "run the critic." Do NOT use for handoff-readiness checks (use rootnode-handoff-trigger-check), general code review, or design-time correctness. Authority matrix required.

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。

Independently review a Proto UI change against current authority, bounded scope, executable evidence, projections, provenance, and integration conditions. Use for pull-request review, acceptance review, pre-merge audit, or fresh-context verification. Do not use to approve one's own 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 when independently reviewing a research-paper draft before submission, running a mock top-conference panel, assessing readiness or accept/reject risk, or predicting reviewer concerns for venues such as CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, ICLR, NeurIPS, and AAAI. Does not draft or audit author responses after official reviews arrive.

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 code-review or security-review findings for false positives using deep codebase tracing, framework-aware analysis, and web research. Produces a .verified.md report alongside the original. Use when a review report has been generated and needs independent verification, or when user runs /verify-findings, mentions "verify review", "check false positives", or "validate findings".

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。

Role-based multi-model strategy. The model catalog lives in a local configuration file instead of the skill text -- roles (thinker/decision-maker, long-running worker, draft generator, reviewer/acceptance, escalation), reasoning effort as an independent axis, mandatory review for draft models, provider switching for independent reviews, budgets, delegation flow, and cost/quality of small workers.

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 code diff or explicit file set through independent correctness and QA lenses. Use when the user asks for a code review, test-coverage assessment, pre-merge audit, or review gate in a PWDEV Flow 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。

OpenAI Codex CLI wrapper — three modes. Code review: independent diff review via codex review with pass/fail gate. Challenge: adversarial mode that tries to break your code. Consult: ask codex anything with session continuity for follow-ups. The "200 IQ autistic developer" second opinion. Use when asked to "codex review", "codex challenge", "ask codex", "second opinion", or "consult codex". (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "code x", "code ex", "get another opinion".

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。

仕様書と関連チケットの依存関係を読み取り、複数のエージェントで実装を進めます。テストとレビューを経て、成果を一つの統合ブランチにまとめるスキルです。

• 複数チケットの仕様を実装したいとき
• 独立した作業を並行実装したいとき
• 実装成果を統合ブランチにまとめたいとき

Review completed implementation changes before final verification. Use when repository policy requires independent review or the user explicitly requests it.

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。

Launch an independent GPT-6.1-Sol Max code review and return it verbatim. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /gpt-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。