「reviewer」の検索結果

PR確認・PRレビューの依頼で、PRまたはremote branchの差分を取得しshared reviewerへ渡す。PR番号・URL・branchを扱い、ローカルの未コミット差分・ファイル指定はreviewerを使う。ユーザーが `/review-pr` と入力したら必ず使う。

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。

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。

Two-thread adversarial review: a fresh reviewer constructs the strongest 200-word rejection memo, then a second fresh reviewer defends the paper point-by-point and surfaces still-unresolved critical issues. Use when user says "kill argument", "adversarial review", "hostile review", "rebuttal preparation", "reviewer-2 simulation", or before submitting a theory paper that has already passed standard review rounds.

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。

Runs an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over any code target — a skill, plugin, module, or directory — using a reviewer the user names: any installed skill or agent. Keeps a cross-round findings ledger, escalates when fixes stop converging, and guards scope mechanically. Use when asked to 'improve this code until review passes', 'run an improvement loop with <reviewer>', or to iterate review-and-fix with a specific reviewer. For skills prefer the skill-improver entry; for a branch prefer pr-improver.

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。

Draft, diagnose, and improve IEEE rebuttals, revision plans, cover letters, response letters, and point-by-point replies using routed reviewer-comment handling. Use when responding to IEEE reviewer or editor comments about novelty, scope, method, experiments, baselines, figures, tables, citations, writing, LaTeX formatting, limitations, compliance, technical correctness, or reviewer comments that appear generic, contradictory, unsupported, careless, or possibly AI-generated.

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 IEEE conference, journal, Transactions, Letters, or magazine manuscripts from a technical reviewer perspective using routed IEEE review gates. Use when evaluating scope fit, novelty, validity, data, clarity, compliance, advancement, engineering significance, method soundness, experiment sufficiency, baseline fairness, figure/table quality, formatting risks, rejection risk, major revision strategy, pre-submission readiness, or the quality and specificity of reviewer comments that may be generic, careless, contradictory, or possibly AI-generated.

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。

Address PR reviewer feedback by evaluating comments, proposing fixes, and executing after user approval. Use when the user wants to handle review comments on an existing PR, address PR feedback, fix PR comments, respond to reviewer suggestions, or process code review feedback. Triggers on "address PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR comments", "respond to PR review", "process reviewer feedback", or when given a PR number/URL with intent to address its comments.

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。

Nature-style chemistry manuscript reviewer skill for testing synthesis, catalysis, chemical biology, molecular/materials chemistry and analytical claims against identity, purity, controls, selectivity, mechanism, scope, reproducibility and quantitative comparison.

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。

Nature-style atmospheric science manuscript reviewer skill for testing observation, reanalysis, model, aerosol-cloud-radiation, extreme-event, circulation-mechanism and attribution claims against their physical evidence chain.

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。

Nature-style engineering manuscript reviewer skill for testing devices, robots, platforms, systems, algorithms embodied in physical systems and engineering methods against requirements, validation, benchmarking, uncertainty, robustness and failure modes.

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。

Nature-style remote-sensing manuscript reviewer skill for evaluating Earth-observation products, retrievals, machine-learning maps, validation design, uncertainty propagation, spatial transferability and claim-scope calibration.

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。

Nature-style climate and ecology manuscript reviewer skill for testing biodiversity, ecosystem-function, carbon-cycle, conservation, global-change and ecological-inference claims against sampling, causal design, model structure, uncertainty and management scope.

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。

Nature-style materials science manuscript reviewer skill for testing materials design, synthesis, processing, structure-property, mechanism, stability, scalability, computational prediction and application claims against materials evidence chains.

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。

Nature-style hydrology manuscript reviewer skill for testing streamflow, runoff, groundwater, water storage, drought, flood, hydroclimate and water-resource claims against water-balance closure, hydrologic signatures, model structure and observational constraints.

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。

Drive a GitHub Copilot (or any bot reviewer) pull-request review to a clean pass without babysitting it: fix each finding in its own commit, reply to the review thread with the fix sha, resolve the thread, re-request the bot, and poll for the async re-review. Covers the thread node-id (PRRT_...) vs comment databaseId distinction, the resolveReviewThread GraphQL mutation, the copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot] slug, and how to read the bot's verdict (COMMENTED plus a "human review recommended" banner is not a blocking finding). Use when Copilot has left review comments on your PR, when bot review threads must be closed out with an auditable fix-reply-resolve trail before merge, or when you need to verify that a re-review actually landed on the new HEAD rather than the old one.

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。

Before committing any non-trivial change, dispatch the diff to a reviewer runtime via ATO (`ato dispatch <reviewer> --session <id>`), parse the numbered/severity-tagged findings, apply or defer each one with a recorded justification, then commit. Fights the "build passes therefore ship it" failure mode — what Garry Tan calls the AI agent complexity ratchet. Place in the v2.16 stack: this skill is the LAST gate. `ato-warroom` decides the design; `ato-mission` runs the multi-step work and produces the diff; `ato-review` checks the diff before commit. When the review is part of a Mission, dispatch the review with `--require-tools read_file,grep,git_diff,git_log` so the reviewer can walk the source itself instead of reasoning from a paraphrase (PR-1.5 tool surface). Receipts land in `execution_logs` and the Mission narrative. Fires automatically before commits touching public surface (CLI subcommands, Tauri commands, MCP tools, schema migrations, security boundaries) or whenever a diff exceeds ~50 LOC of behavior change.

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 recording, tallying, or triaging stochastic review findings — the append-only JSONL ledger where Tier 2 (advisory, unevidenced) reviewer output goes instead of blocking language. Triggers on "log this finding", "ledger add", "tally the findings", "triage findings", "is this finding recurring", "retire this noise", or whenever a reviewer produces an unevidenced concern that should be measured for recurrence rather than chased. For the review itself see code-review-and-quality or skill-library-review; for verifying formal claims with deterministic evidence see adversarial-claims-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。

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。

Read-only reviewer for agent-flow. Judges one diff against the acceptance criteria, AGENTS.md rules, protected paths and risk boundaries; returns a JSON verdict with line-anchored findings. Use when launched with AGENT_FLOW_ROLE=reviewer or asked for an agent-flow review of a diff.

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。

Kontokonzept für den budgetierten Einsatz teurer oder knapper Modelle (Advisor, Reviewer, Spezialmodelle, Dauer-Worker) in längeren Agentenläufen. Beginnt mit einer gemeinsamen Aushandlung zwischen Nutzer und Modell über verfügbare Modelle, Rollen und Kontingente je Zeitfenster, führt ein Konto über jeden Einsatz, setzt vor jeder Eskalation ein Puzzleteil-Vorverfahren und erlaubt Anpassungen mitten im Lauf. Verwenden bei "Budget", "Kontingent", "Konto führen", "nur einmal pro Stunde", "Reviewer sparsam einsetzen", "Fable/Codex/Sol/Astra/Luna/Advisor nur begrenzt", "/budgetierung", und immer dann, wenn ein Operator-, Forschungs- oder Automationslauf mehrere Modelle mit unterschiedlichen Kosten kombinieren soll — auch wenn der Nutzer das Wort Budget nicht nennt, aber Einsatzgrenzen für Modelle vorgibt.

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。

Monitor PR review comments and automatically classify and address reviewer feedback including code changes, questions, and nits. Use when handling PR reviews, addressing reviewer comments, responding to code review feedback, or automating review resolution. Triggers on handle reviews, PR review, address feedback, reviewer comments, code review, review response.

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 or rollout plan in character as a Works Council Representative archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, employee-impact risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this as the works council would", "what would the works council say about this rollout", "prepare me for the staff council consultation", "find the employee-impact gaps in this plan" or "pressure-test this deck from the employee representative side". Do not use for people strategy, restructuring or HR policy, use chro-reviewer instead; for whether frontline staff will adopt or work around the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. 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。