「review」の検索結果

Abstracts one contract into a key-terms table with clause references, compares each term against the user's playbook of standard positions, and returns a DRAFT contract review pack: deviations and issues, open questions and a reviewer checklist. Flags governing law and never gives legal advice or enforceability or acceptability calls. Use when the user asks to "review this contract", "abstract the key terms", "summarise this MSA", "pressure-test this SOW against our playbook" or to compare an agreement with their standard positions. Do not use for a first pass on a stand-alone NDA, use nda-triage instead, or for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table 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。

Builds and maintains a DRAFT impact log from notes, messages, status updates and completed work: one row per outcome with its evidence and evidence level, date, who benefited and the source it traces to, plus a gap list of outcomes that still lack evidence, structured so a later review, appraisal or promotion case can draw on it. Use when the user asks to "start an impact log", "add this to my impact log", "log what I achieved this quarter", "pull my wins out of these notes", "turn these messages into evidence for my review" or "what do I have evidence for so far". Do not use for a performance rating, ranking, pay or promotion decision, the skill records evidence and never judges it; for the review narrative itself, use performance-review-drafter; for a role profile built from the work, use job-description-drafter 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。

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。

Pre-tests one message (email, announcement, intranet post, town hall script, customer notice or slide) against two to six role personas the user supplies and returns a DRAFT panel report: each persona's likely first reaction, objections, unanswered questions, misreadings and what they would do next, every point tied to the passage that triggers it, plus suggested edits that add no fact the message does not already hold. Use when the user asks to "pre-test this message", "how will the team read this", "run this past the personas", "what objections will this raise", "find the holes before I send" or "check this lands with managers and field staff". Do not use for an in-character review of a proposal or business case by one executive archetype, use the executive-review family (cfo-reviewer, frontline-skeptic-reviewer and siblings) instead; to write the message in the first place, use announcement-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。

修正と再レビューを繰り返して指摘を潰し切る収束ループを求められたときに必ず使用する。「レビューを収束させて」「指摘ゼロまでレビューして」「レビューと修正を繰り返して」「レビュー対応を回して」「指摘が無くなるまで直して」など、反復レビューの意図があればスキル名や「収束」の語が無くても発火する。単発の「レビューして」(1 回のレビュー報告で足りる依頼)は diff-review の領分でこのスキルは使わない。修正対象は fix 指摘のみで、improvement(改善提案)は修正せず見送り一覧に残す。`/review-converge [--until <閾値>]` で明示起動も可。

Open the alpha review screen to mark judge keepers as gold or miss, read per-miner precision, and print the eval state. Use when tuning a miner's accuracy. Thin launcher over the existing harvest engine and local review server. Triggers: "/alpha-review", "alpha screen", "open the review screen".

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。

Daily wisdom review applying Charlie Munger's mental models to your work and thinking. Use when asked to review decisions, analyze thinking patterns, detect biases, apply mental models, do a "Munger review", or run the Munger Observer. Triggers on scheduled daily reviews or manual requests like "run munger observer", "review my thinking", "check for blind spots", or "apply mental models".

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。

既存のレビュー結果 (review-self / review-external) を再点検し、漏れ・誤検知・ハルシネーション・根拠欠落を検出する W チェック skill

.river-review.{yaml,json} の context.budget / ranking / reviewMode 設定をモデル仕様とリポジトリ規模に合わせて調整するレビュー観点。

Checks whether AI-assisted work defines review criteria, accessible context, explicit review loop, human judgment boundary, and feedback capture before delegating to an agent.

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。

Get a second opinion or independent review from Codex (OpenAI) via the local Codex CLI. Use when the user wants Codex to review a design memo, PR, diff, or decision, or to cross-check an approach from another model. Also trigger on "Codexに聞いて", "Codexと相談", "Codexにレビュー", "Codexの意見", "別のモデルで確認".

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

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 working with Coderabbit — codeRabbit AI code review management including automated review comments, auto-suggestions, review customization, and learning from feedback. Use when configuring CodeRabbit for AI-assisted code review, custom review rules, and automated suggestion workflows.

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 working with Crucible — atlassian Crucible code review management including review creation, commenting workflows, approval processes, and Jira integration. Use when managing Crucible review workflows, configuring review templates, and enforcing review completion policies.

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 working with Bitbucket Pr Reviews — bitbucket pull request review management including default reviewers, merge checks, branch permissions, and build status integration. Use when configuring or automating Bitbucket PR review workflows across repositories and workspaces.

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。

Perform a read-only, defect-first review of a specified code change and return every actionable finding. Use when another agent delegates review of uncommitted changes, a base-branch diff, a commit, or custom review instructions.

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 the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes - Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

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。

Review a git diff or explicit file scope for reuse, code quality, efficiency, clarity, and standards issues, then optionally apply safe Codex-driven fixes. Use when the user asks to "simplify code", "review changed code", "check for code reuse", "review code quality", "review efficiency", "simplify changes", "clean up code", "refactor changes", or "run simplify".

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 someone asks to write, rewrite, review, or improve text that appears inside a product or interface. Examples: "review the UX copy", "is there a better way to phrase this", "rewrite this error message", "write copy for this screen/flow/page", reviewing button labels, improving CLI output messages, writing onboarding copy, settings descriptions, or confirmation dialogs. Trigger whenever the request involves wording shown to end users inside software — apps, web, CLI, email notifications, modals, tooltips, empty states, or alerts. Also trigger for vague requests like "review the UX" where interface copy review is implied. Do NOT trigger for content marketing, blog posts, app store listings, API docs, brand guides, cover letters, or interview questions — this is a technical writing skill for interface language.

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。

Devil's-advocate attack on AI workflow designs — threat model, assumption challenges, code critiques, and hypothetical redesigns with no file edits. Use for "attack this design", devil's advocate, or hostile challenge on agents/tools/summarization/tokens. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or self-review that applies fixes (ai-systems-review). Prefer: this skill → decide → ai-systems-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。

Hostile self-review of recently written AI workflow code that then applies fixes (agents, tools, chat context, summarization, tokens, attachments). Use after generating AI systems code, or when asked to self-review and harden it. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate attacks (adversarial-challenge). Prefer: adversarial-challenge → decide → this skill.

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。

Interacts with live Hunk diff review sessions via CLI. Inspects review focus, navigates files, hunks, and exact lines, reloads session contents, adds inline review comments, and paints attention marks on character ranges. Use when the user has a Hunk session running or wants to review diffs interactively.

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 whenever the screens, UX, wording, feedback after actions, accessibility, or layout of frontend/ come up, even without the word "review" — delegates to the frontend-ux-reviewer agent, which runs the dev screens against the Lean CLI with Playwright and reports with evidence. Not for reviewing the domain model itself (that is the ddd skill's 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。