410 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when deciding the verdict of a security review - severity and confidence scales, when to block, approve with notes, drop or reject as unreviewable, and the exact comment templates
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 before any review_criterion approval or column move - the evidence each verdict needs, how to treat skipped, blocked and intermittent cases, and which exit a blocker takes
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。
Synthesize multiple independent structured review verdicts into one lossless deduplicated punch list. Use when findings from several review perspectives must be merged without inventing, dropping, or changing source verdicts.
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。
Load the shared verdict, punch-list, SKIP, and gate schema used by the dh multi-perspective review orchestrator, reviewers, and synthesizer. Use only when one of those components must produce, parse, validate, or gate review 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。
One committed verdict on something that exists, cited. Use when something exists and a claim about it needs 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。
Before any material decision — code chunk, plan, strategy, design, scope cut, push to GitHub — convene a war-room. The session driver takes the CEO seat: frame the tradeoff, summon specialist seats from whatever agent roster the user has built, dispatch a cross-family voice via `ato dispatch` so priors actually disagree, decide. A failure-mode filter (wrong assumptions / overcomplexity / orthogonal edits / imperative-over-declarative — Karpathy's four are one good default, swap in your own) runs on every dispatch. Place in the v2.16 stack: war-rooms DECIDE before code starts; `ato-mission` EXECUTES the work between decisions (multi-step, goal-driven, persisted across days); `ato-review` VERIFIES the resulting commits. Use a war-room for the design verdict, hand the verdict to a Mission, review the merged result. Fires before: sending a code draft to the user as final, opening a PR, pushing to a remote-tracking branch, committing >50 LOC of behavior change, or delivering a plan or strategic recommendation as the final answer.
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 a seven-agent adversarial pipeline against a resume and cover letter before submission. Produces channel-conditional verdicts anchored to the realistic applicant pool, separates materials quality from submission expected value, and ends with a contrarian pass that can overturn the 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。
Reviews a GitHub PR with a single shallow correctness/security/breaking/AI-slop checklist and emits a verdict; optionally posts it via gh pr review. Use to review an external or teammate PR. NOT for deep pre-landing audit of your own diff (see mk:review); NOT for responding to received review comments (see 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。
Discipline for repairing a false claim once it has propagated: select what depends on it, produce a replacement, and accept with an expiring verdict. Trigger when: - A claim, citation, premise, or documented fact is found wrong and its downstream consequences must be traced and fixed. - A refutation, a failed re-run, a retracted external source, or a human correction lands against something already closed or already promoted. - Prompt contains: /remediation, remediation, retraction, false claim, propagated error, scrub, correction propagation, born-false, became-false, currency verdict, impeachment 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-extract-blueprint が生成した章別ブループリントの忠実性を独立 context で評価したいとき、事実/推測区別と粒度と被覆を検証し draft_hash に束縛した PASS/FAIL verdict をローカル品質ゲート (C01 の周回内の受入判定・差し戻し) へ渡したいときに使う。
生成した handout 資料が初心者に伝わるか読みやすさレビューを依頼したいとき、独立 context のレビュアーから指摘と根拠つきの verdict を回収したいときに使う。
参考システムのURL1件から、フロント表層の事実とバックエンド/設計意図の根拠つき推測を明示区別した章別ブループリントを外部公開せずローカルに生成したいとき、生成物の忠実性を独立verdictで品質評価したいときに使う。
Work the verification ladder of a research run with rs_verify — read the ladder report before claiming anything is checked, run the two file rungs (r1-record, r2-locate) that need no reader, record the r3-support verdicts and strength verdicts that only a reader can make, tell a miss from an inconclusive, and know what a clean build will still refuse. Use when a document is written and about to be called checked, when a claim's quote does not match its source, or when a gate or build answers with an integrity refusal.
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 Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate 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。
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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Operating Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to specific sections, delivery and operational risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a COO review", "pressure-test the delivery plan", "what would our COO say about this", "check the timeline and capacity" or "find the execution gaps before the steering committee". Do not use for financial questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-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。
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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Data Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, data and AI governance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CDO review", "pressure-test the data governance in this plan", "what would a CDO say about this", "check the metric definitions and data sources" or "prepare this for the data governance board". Do not use for security controls or third-party security risk, use ciso-reviewer instead; for contract, liability or regulatory terms, use general-counsel-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。