1.5万 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Review-fix pipeline for Codex. Equivalent to the repository's Claude skill: collect review feedback, apply fixes through the existing review workflow, and prepare replies. Usage: /review [<issue#>|<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。
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。
Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. 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。
[Planning] Use when you need to auto-review a plan for validity, correctness, and best practices — recursive: review, validate findings with why-review, fix validated findings, full re-review until no 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。
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。
Iteratively improves a PR (GitHub), MR (GitLab), or shelved changelist (Perforce) until it reaches the repository's configured Greptile merge threshold with zero unresolved actionable comments, or until the five-review maximum is reached. Triggers Greptile review, fixes all actionable comments, pushes/re-shelves, re-triggers review only for new head SHAs unless a 5/5 score is already published, and repeats. Use when the user wants to optimize a PR/MR/CL against Greptile's code review standards without creating runaway review loops.
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。
WeChat Mini Program development skill for building, debugging, previewing, testing, publishing, and optimizing mini program projects. This skill should be used when users ask to create, develop, modify, debug, preview, test, deploy, publish, launch, review, or optimize WeChat Mini Programs, mini program pages, components, `tabBar`, routing, navigation, icon assets, project structure, project configuration, `project.config.json`, `appid` setup, device preview, real-device validation, WeChat Developer Tools Nightly workflows, `wechatide` CLI, WeChat IDE Skills/MCP, console/network debugging, `miniprogram-ci` preview/upload flows, or mini program release processes. It should also be used when users explicitly mention CloudBase, `wx.cloud`, Tencent CloudBase, 腾讯云开发, 微信云开发, or 云开发 in a mini program project.
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。
Create or revise repository-aware social preview images for GitHub, package pages, launch posts, and link cards. Use when an agent needs to inspect a project, sharpen its short positioning, generate a branded 2:1 raster preview, explore color variants, adapt a supplied visual reference without copying it, or validate and save a social-card image non-destructively.
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。
Jevを使い、日本語中心・英語対応で文書、メール、メッセージ、提案書、技術資料、スライドの抽出テキストを多角的にレビューする。AIっぽさ、定型的な文体、冗長さ、直訳調、過剰敬語などを評価し、根拠引用と具体的な改善案を作成担当者へ返して改善ループを回すときに使う。Japanese-first bilingual editorial style review with Jev scores, source-grounded feedback and bounded revision loops; not an AI-authorship detector.
Compress review pressure into the right next action instead of more code by default. Classify findings, reject non-liabilities, and choose proof-only vs minimal-fix vs refactor-kernel, preventing one-patch-per-comment churn. Use after a code review — PR comments, reviewer suggestions, or audit findings — and especially when you are about to reflexively patch every comment.
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+fix protocol with optional pre-core git diff review and safety guardrails (unsoundness, invariants, footguns, incidental complexity). Use when prompts say "/tw-fix this PR", "fix current branch", "fix this diff", "repair CI red", or "apply a minimal patch", and when crash/corruption/invariant-break issues need correction with a validation signal. Stop only after self-review exhausts actionable changes, each full cycle reaches post-self-review rerun plus terminal diff-review closure, and two consecutive zero-edit full cycles are clean.
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。
Comprehensive code review for quality, security, performance. Triggers on 'review code', 'code review', 'check this PR', 'audit 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。
Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability 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。
Turns sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-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。
Reviews a RAID log (risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies) line by line and returns a DRAFT review pack: which entries are stale, overdue, duplicated, ownerless, incomplete or misfiled, why, and a proposed update per line as current text against proposed text with the decision the project manager must take. Never re-rates, closes, merges or edits the log. Use when the user asks to "review the RAID log", "clean up the risk log", "health-check the RAID log before the steering meeting", "which risks are stale", "find duplicate risks" or "refresh the issue log". Do not use for setting up a new RAID log or logging a single new risk, issue or decision, use project-status-tracker 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。
Summarises one sprint from the board export, sprint report and review or stand-up notes the user provides into a one-page DRAFT sprint review summary: the sprint goal as written, items delivered, items not delivered with the reasons the sources state, carry-over, impediments, metrics exactly as given, and numbered questions for the retrospective, every row referenced to a work item or note fragment and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "summarise the sprint", "write the sprint review", "what did we deliver this sprint", "list the carry-over and blockers" or "draft the sprint recap". Do not use for the retrospective write-up or themed lessons across several sprints, use lessons-learned-synthesis instead; for a weekly project status report, use project-status-tracker. 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 marketing, packaging, web or sustainability text against the environmental-claim rules the user supplies (house policy, regulator guidance extract, industry code) and returns a DRAFT claims review: every environmental claim quoted verbatim with location and family, the evidence the text or evidence pack offers for it with date and scope, the supplied rule passages that bear on each claim, observations as read, and separate question lists for legal and for marketing. No compliance, greenwashing or substantiation verdict. Use when the user asks to "review these green claims", "check this copy against our environmental claims policy", "what evidence do we have for carbon neutral here", "list the sustainability claims in this brochure" or "prepare questions for legal on this eco campaign". Do not use for mapping general factual claims to evidence, use claims-evidence-map 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。
Reads one export transaction, order or shipment description and returns a DRAFT export review pack: parties to screen with a screening checklist, an item classification worksheet, a red-flag review, licence-determination questions and open items. Use when the user asks to "prepare the export review for this order", "pre-check this shipment for export control", "who do we need to screen on this deal", "build the classification worksheet for this item" or "assemble the trade-compliance file for this technology transfer". Do not use for vendor security or due-diligence screening of a supplier's questionnaire answers; use vendor-risk-screening-brief instead. Never classifies, screens, clears, decides licence need or releases a shipment; trade compliance does. 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。
Reviews one SKILL.md against the format rules and returns a findings table: strict YAML front matter with exactly name and description, name equal to the folder, description as the trigger, the eight-heading skeleton, capability-neutral wording, safety boundaries. Each finding carries severity, rule identifier, location, quoted evidence and replacement text; the verdict READY, REVISE or BLOCKED is an apparent state and the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "review this SKILL.md", "check my skill file before upload", "lint this skill description", "validate the front matter of this skill" or "score this skill folder". Do not use to write an agent's instructions field, use agent-instructions-drafter instead; for injection or leakage exposures use agent-instructions-red-team; for launch tests use agent-evaluation-plan. 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。
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。