「code quality」の検索結果

Analyzes a repository and its test suite to generate customized mutation operators tailored to the project. Use this skill when setting up mutation testing, improving test quality, or generating project-specific mutants. Considers language constructs, business logic patterns, API calls, data types, and code complexity to produce effective mutation operators that maximize test sensitivity while avoiding trivial or equivalent mutations. Generates prioritized operator sets (high/medium/low value) with impact summaries. Triggers when users ask to generate mutation operators, customize mutation testing, analyze code for mutation opportunities, or create project-specific mutants.

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。

Guide for quality focused software architecture. This skill should be used when users want to write code, design architecture, analyze code, in any case that relates to software development.

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, categorize, and prioritize technical debt. Trigger with "tech debt", "technical debt audit", "what should we refactor", "code health", or when the user asks about code quality, refactoring priorities, or maintenance backlog.

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, simplicity, and common mistakes before declaring work complete.

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。

Find bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues in local branch changes. Use when asked to review changes, find bugs, security review, or audit code on the current branch.

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。

Improve code quality and maintainability through systematic identification of code smells and application of proven refactoring patterns. Use when the user requests refactoring or provides relevant inputs for this 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。

Assesses ChIP-seq quality across antibody specificity, fragmentation, enrichment, replicate concordance, and library complexity. Computes FRiP, NSC/RSC (phantompeakqualtools), library complexity (NRF/PBC1/PBC2), deepTools plotFingerprint (JS distance, AUC, synthetic JS), ChIPQC, IDR with ENCODE Nself/Nt rules, and detects hyper-ChIPable artifacts. Use when validating an antibody, diagnosing failed peak calls, deciding whether to proceed with downstream analysis, grading against ENCODE thresholds, or auditing replicate concordance.

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。

Test AI/LLM features that ship in your product. Covers prompt regression testing, response quality evaluation, tool-call validation, hallucination and RAG grounding checks, nondeterministic-output strategies, red-team/safety scans, eval frameworks, and agent-as-target injection (indirect injection via tool output / RAG / scan reports, self-propagating payloads, data exfiltration via an agent) plus a bundled detector for untrusted content. Use when: "test our LLM feature," "prompt regression test," "eval framework," "hallucination test," "RAG grounding," "nondeterministic output," "AI feature testing," "red-team our chatbot," "indirect prompt injection," "agent reading untrusted tool output," "production AI quality." Not for: using AI to generate your own test code — use ai-test-generation. Not for: classifying CI failures with AI — use ai-bug-triage. Not for: EU AI Act / GDPR conformity of an AI feature — use compliance-testing. Not for: canary/flag rollout of an AI feature — use testing-in-production. Related: ai-test-generation, ai-qa-review, api-testing, compliance-testing, security-testing, risk-based-testing, test-data-management.

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。

Accessibility isn't a feature - it's a fundamental quality of good software. 1 in 4 adults has a disability. Many more have temporary impairments or situational limitations. Your users include people who can't see, can't hear, can't use a mouse, or can't process information the way you do. This skill covers WCAG guidelines, ARIA patterns, keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, and automated testing. Key insight: accessible code is better code. The constraints of accessibility lead to simpler, more semantic, more maintainable implementations. 2025 lesson: Accessibility lawsuits are at an all-time high. "We'll add it later" is both ethically wrong and legally risky. Start accessible, stay accessible. Use when "accessibility, a11y, wcag, aria, screen reader, keyboard navigation, focus trap, alt text, color contrast, skip link, accessible, accessibility, a11y, wcag, aria, screen-reader, keyboard, inclusive, semantic-html" mentioned.

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。

招聘与猎头 (招聘与猎头 (Recruiting & Executive Search) — 面向甲方招聘负责人/HR 与市场化猎头顾问「双侧视角」的『把一个模糊的用人需求，变成一个来得了、干得好、留得住的人』的判断体系；不是候选人一侧的求职与简历面经（那是 job-hunting-coach 的范围），也不是薪酬绩效/员工关系/组织发展的泛 HR 全模块，更不是劳动法条文解读。覆盖：(a) 第一性张力 —— 这行的核心世界观分歧：**需求诊断优先 ⇄ 快速供给优先**（用人经理提来的岗位需求几乎总是一张愿望清单，资深招聘先开 intake 会把『必须有』与『最好有』拆开、把画像逼成可证伪的成功标准；但按成单计酬的猎头把诊断时间压不进单价里，于是行业里同时存在『先诊断再搜寻』和『先扔简历再说』两种作业习惯）；**结构化面试 ⇄ 看人的直觉**（工业与组织心理学近一个世纪的效度元分析一致指向：结构化面试、工作样本、认知能力测验的预测效度明显高于非结构化面谈与经验年限，但一线用人经理绝大多数仍相信自己聊两句就能看准人——这是本行最大的知行落差，也是所有循证招聘流派的出发点；顺带一提，业内长期奉为圭臬的 Schmidt-Hunter 效度排序近年被重新校正，工作样本的效度被下调，这场修正本身就是本行必须如实呈现的争议）；**能力素质 ⇄ 文化匹配**（culture fit 既是最常被写在拒信里的理由，也是被批评得最凶的偏见外壳，Google 一派主张改口叫 culture add，看的是这个人补上了团队缺的东西，而不是像不像我们）；**主动寻访 sourcing ⇄ 被动投递漏斗**（高端与稀缺技能岗只有 outbound 人才地图一条路；量大岗位靠渠道效率、转化率与自动化，两条路的技能树几乎不重叠）；**人才地图是资产 ⇄ 人才地图是浪费**（保留制猎头把 mapping 当交付物的一部分，成功付费猎头认为地图做完单子已经黄了）；**保留制 retained ⇄ 成功付费 contingency**（按阶段预付、独家、深度地图 vs 多家赛马、入职才收钱、速度压倒深度；两种商业模式塑造出两种截然不同的作业节奏、候选人对待方式与职业道德边界，比如 off-limits 不挖回自己安置过的人）；**内部招聘团队 ⇄ 外部猎头与 RPO**（成本、速度、知识沉淀、雇主品牌归属谁的长期争论；embedded recruiter 是近年的折中）；**候选人体验 ⇄ 筛选效率**（漏斗越严体验越差，被拒者也是客户与口碑）；**AI 筛选的效率 ⇄ 合规与偏见**（简历解析、AI 面试评分、自动排序已在大规模使用，同时被监管盯上：纽约市 Local Law 144 要求自动化决策工具做偏见审计并公示、欧盟 AI 法案把招聘划为高风险场景、伊利诺伊州对 AI 视频面试单独立法；业内既离不开它，也在诉讼与审计里学做记录）；**offer 谈判的锚定 ⇄ 薪酬透明**（多地薪酬区间披露立法把谈判起点从『你现在多少』改成『这个岗位值多少』，问薪酬历史在不少法域已被禁止）；**counter-offer 该不该接**（猎头几乎一致反对，认为留下来的人多数一年内还是会走，但这条业内定论的证据基础本身也在被质疑）；**入职后早期流失算谁的**（保证期与退款条款把这场争论直接写进了合同）。(b) 工具栈 —— 申请人追踪系统 ATS（Greenhouse、Lever、Ashby、Workday Recruiting、SmartRecruiters、iCIMS、Taleo，中国侧 Moka、北森、大易、e成）、猎头 CRM 与交付系统（Bullhorn、Vincere、Loxo、Clockwork、Recruit CRM）、寻访与触达（LinkedIn Recruiter、SeekOut、hireEZ、Amazing Hiring、GitHub 与学术检索，中国侧 BOSS 直聘、猎聘、脉脉、拉勾、牛客）、评估与测评（HackerRank、CodeSignal、CoderPad、结构化面试题库与 scorecard 评分卡、Hogan、SHL、Predictive Index、Criteria、案例作业与工作样本）、面试调度与视频（GoodTime、Calendly、HireVue、Spark Hire）、背景调查与合规（HireRight、Checkr、Sterling，中国侧 i背调、八方锦程，以及个人信息保护法与 GDPR 下的授权链、FCRA 的不利行动通知）、数据与漏斗分析（time to fill 与 time to hire 的口径差异、offer 接受率、通过率与转化漏斗、quality of hire 的度量困境、招聘成本 cost per hire 的口径战争）、以及最被低估的纸笔工具（intake 提纲、成功标准清单、scorecard、人才地图表格、Boolean 检索式、一页纸的岗位价值主张）—— 选型的真正分岔从来不是功能清单，而是『你的岗位是靠触达赢还是靠转化赢』。(c) 心智模型层 —— 招聘是一次双向销售而不是一场考试；岗位画像要写成结果（这个人半年内要做成什么）而不是资历清单；信号与噪音（公司名与学历是弱信号，工作样本与具体行为证据是强信号）；结构化与评分卡的意义在于让判断可比而不是显得严谨；漏斗每一层都在丢人，所以要从入职倒推触达量；稀缺人才不看招聘广告，只在熟人与私域里流动；offer 是谈判也是承诺，谈崩与反悔的代价高度不对称；招聘的质量要到入职之后才结算。(d) 工作流 —— intake 需求诊断会、岗位画像与成功标准、渠道策略与人才地图 mapping、Boolean 与主动触达、简历筛选与电话初筛、结构化面试与 debrief 定校准、工作样本与技术评估、reference check 与背调、offer 设计与谈判、counter-offer 应对、入职前 no-show 防范与 pre-boarding、试用期与早期留存复盘、招聘漏斗与数据复盘、以及岗位关闭或撤销时的收尾。(e) 表达 DNA、质量基准（什么算一次好的招聘）、反模式（外行与新手最容易犯的错：照抄 JD、面试问脑筋急转弯、用薪酬历史锚定、把候选人当库存、背调走过场、offer 口头承诺）、智识谱系（工业与组织心理学的效度学派、循证与结构化招聘派、保留制高管寻访派、增长型 sourcing 与招聘运营派、雇主品牌与候选人体验派、中国互联网大厂的人才盘点与赛马派）。) Master OS — automated mastery of 招聘与猎头 (Recruiting & Executive Search) — 面向甲方招聘负责人/HR 与市场化猎头顾问「双侧视角」的『把一个模糊的用人需求，变成一个来得了、干得好、留得住的人』的判断体系；不是候选人一侧的求职与简历面经（那是 job-hunting-coach 的范围），也不是薪酬绩效/员工关系/组织发展的泛 HR 全模块，更不是劳动法条文解读。覆盖：(a) 第一性张力 —— 这行的核心世界观分歧：**需求诊断优先 ⇄ 快速供给优先**（用人经理提来的岗位需求几乎总是一张愿望清单，资深招聘先开 intake 会把『必须有』与『最好有』拆开、把画像逼成可证伪的成功标准；但按成单计酬的猎头把诊断时间压不进单价里，于是行业里同时存在『先诊断再搜寻』和『先扔简历再说』两种作业习惯）；**结构化面试 ⇄ 看人的直觉**（工业与组织心理学近一个世纪的效度元分析一致指向：结构化面试、工作样本、认知能力测验的预测效度明显高于非结构化面谈与经验年限，但一线用人经理绝大多数仍相信自己聊两句就能看准人——这是本行最大的知行落差，也是所有循证招聘流派的出发点；顺带一提，业内长期奉为圭臬的 Schmidt-Hunter 效度排序近年被重新校正，工作样本的效度被下调，这场修正本身就是本行必须如实呈现的争议）；**能力素质 ⇄ 文化匹配**（culture fit 既是最常被写在拒信里的理由，也是被批评得最凶的偏见外壳，Google 一派主张改口叫 culture add，看的是这个人补上了团队缺的东西，而不是像不像我们）；**主动寻访 sourcing ⇄ 被动投递漏斗**（高端与稀缺技能岗只有 outbound 人才地图一条路；量大岗位靠渠道效率、转化率与自动化，两条路的技能树几乎不重叠）；**人才地图是资产 ⇄ 人才地图是浪费**（保留制猎头把 mapping 当交付物的一部分，成功付费猎头认为地图做完单子已经黄了）；**保留制 retained ⇄ 成功付费 contingency**（按阶段预付、独家、深度地图 vs 多家赛马、入职才收钱、速度压倒深度；两种商业模式塑造出两种截然不同的作业节奏、候选人对待方式与职业道德边界，比如 off-limits 不挖回自己安置过的人）；**内部招聘团队 ⇄ 外部猎头与 RPO**（成本、速度、知识沉淀、雇主品牌归属谁的长期争论；embedded recruiter 是近年的折中）；**候选人体验 ⇄ 筛选效率**（漏斗越严体验越差，被拒者也是客户与口碑）；**AI 筛选的效率 ⇄ 合规与偏见**（简历解析、AI 面试评分、自动排序已在大规模使用，同时被监管盯上：纽约市 Local Law 144 要求自动化决策工具做偏见审计并公示、欧盟 AI 法案把招聘划为高风险场景、伊利诺伊州对 AI 视频面试单独立法；业内既离不开它，也在诉讼与审计里学做记录）；**offer 谈判的锚定 ⇄ 薪酬透明**（多地

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 to review pull requests, analyze code changes, check for security issues in PRs, or assess code quality of diffs.

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 invokes /cr, requests a code review, or before committing to verify correctness, security, and quality of new or modified code in the working tree.

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。

Applies the nutritional epidemiology and public health frameworks of Frank B. Hu (nutrition epidemiologist, Harvard University). Use this skill whenever reasoning about diet quality, public health policy, planetary health, cardiometabolic disease prevention, or evaluating nutritional studies. Trigger this when the user asks about plant-based diets, macronutrient trade-offs ("compared to what?"), the impact of the food environment, or lifestyle factors for longevity. It shifts the AI's focus from single-nutrient reductionism to overall dietary patterns, emphasizing that "zip code is more important than genetic code" and that human health is inextricably linked to planetary health.

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。

Suede Labs agent-team orchestrator: split complex work into coordinated lanes with explicit file ownership, WIP collision detection, quality gates, escalation thresholds, rollback plans, and handoffs that prove what shipped. Use when one shared change needs safe parallel ownership across builders and reviewers, when a lane map must be resolved before anyone opens a file, or when running a repeatable public-repository contribution program with issue scoring, atomic task leases, isolated worktrees, and explicit publication authority. NOT FOR: one repo change a bundled DAG can run end to end (use suede-graph-flo-xr); findings-only review of a diff (use suede-code-review) or an A-F ship grade (use suede-code-grader); CI, branch protection, or merge-gate wiring (use suede-ci-gate); branch and worktree setup on a stale mirror (a private Suede Labs companion, not in this pack).

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 this skill on every programming task — writing code, fixing bugs, refactoring, explaining code, running tools, or answering technical questions. Apply token-saving and quality-preserving practices throughout. Activate even when the user doesn't explicitly ask for efficiency — this skill is always relevant for software development work. Do not skip this skill for "simple" tasks; the rules apply at every scale.

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。

Stage-aware prompt coaching, prompt improvement, lookback analysis, prompting habit feedback, and local reports about prompt quality for AI coding agents such as Claude Code or Codex.

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。

Kotlin coding standards including null safety, Either error handling, coroutines, and Exposed ORM patterns. Use when writing Kotlin code, reviewing code quality, or learning project patterns.

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 test quality using best practices validation. Use when user says "lets review tests" or "I want to evaluate test quality"

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。

Silent quality check after every feature. Fix issues before telling user. Never claim tests passed without running them.

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。

Full repository maintenance pipeline that orchestrates all project agents in sequence - code review, accessibility, bundle size, security, API stability, test coverage, ecosystem, and release preparation. Acts as a quality gate before publishing or merging major changes. Use when: maintenance, health check, pre-release audit, quality gate, full pipeline, repo health, pre-merge check, release readiness, audit all.

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。

Simplify recently changed code for clarity, reuse, quality, and efficiency while preserving behavior. Use for tidy/refactor passes; use ce-debug for bugs.

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。

Establishes a project's quality bar as a written contract and stops agents quietly lowering it. Interviews the user on which dimensions matter, supplies sane default thresholds when they have no number in mind, records everything in CONSTRAINTS.md, and watches the diff for a weakened bar — new @ts-ignore or eslint-disable suppressions, skipped or deleted tests, assertions stripped out, unimplemented stubs, thresholds edited down. Use when no quality bar is written down, when the user says "set up constraints" or "define our standards", when the user wants dimensions they care about — accessibility, web performance, coverage — set up as enforced constraints, when an agent keeps silencing checks or skipping tests to get to green, when you need a coverage or performance threshold and don't know what number to pick, or when an agent writes more code than anyone will read.

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 source files changed during a phase for bugs, security issues, and code quality problems

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。

Rules against AI slop in code, comments, commit messages and docs. Use whenever you write or edit code, write documentation, a README, a commit message or a PR description, or review changes for quality.

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。