「review」の検索結果

Auto-fix issues found by code review in REVIEW.md. Spawns fixer agent, commits each fix atomically, produces REVIEW-FIX.md summary.

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。

[omh] Missed route or run lessons to record: classify and review self-improvement store routes as an auxiliary review lane before durable writes, then record workflow attempts as metadata-only traces, evals, review queues, patch proposals, regression cases, audits, indexes, and exports. Use when the user says: workflow-learning, workflow learning, route-signal, self-improvement store routing, store route review, memory skill wiki routing, learning trace, learning audit.

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。

[omh] AI agent progress for managers: help managers inspect AI-agent progress, blockers, quality gates, and throughput levers. Use when the user says: agent-ops-review, agent ops review, agent productivity, operator productivity, manager view, quality dashboard, throughput review, agent work 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。

[omh] Pull request or changes to vet: bug-first review with evidence. Use when the user says: code-review, review, audit, find bugs, release gate, claim audit, evidence audit, README claim.

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。

[omh] Context window or token budget at risk: plan compact context, token/cost budgets, summarization checkpoints, and overflow recovery before long agent work. Use when the user says: context-budget-review, context budget review, context budget, token budget review, token budget, prompt budget, prompt caching, prompt cache.

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 asked to review a PR, run a code review loop, or invoke the ralph reviewer against a pull request number or GitHub URL

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。

Security-focused code review checklist and automated scanning patterns. Use when reviewing pull requests for security issues, auditing authentication/authorization code, checking for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, or validating input sanitization. Covers SQL injection prevention, XSS protection, CSRF tokens, authentication flow review, secrets detection, dependency vulnerability scanning, and secure coding patterns for Python (FastAPI) and React. Does NOT cover deployment security (use docker-best-practices) or incident handling (use incident-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。

SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; its docs-aware mode covers this variant) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening with living documentation. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan, one question at a time, challenging it against your project's existing domain model and glossary (CONTEXT.md), sharpening fuzzy terms, stress-testing with concrete scenarios, cross-referencing code, and updating CONTEXT.md + ADRs inline as decisions crystallise. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-with-docs-codex", "grill me against the docs then have codex review", "stress-test this against our domain model then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes in a project with established terminology/ADRs and wants alignment, documentation, AND a cross-model sanity check. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-with-docs (MIT). NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial changes.

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。

Have Codex independently review an existing implementation plan while Claude coordinates a bounded revision loop. For automatic reviewer selection from either host, use claudex-loop with mode=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。

Role profile — a reviewer who is fact-seeking, bedrock-seeking, honest, and rejecting. Demands that arguments rest on small facts that cannot be wrong (not on stacked assumptions dressed up as foundation), and that deliberately-unclear concepts be quarantined — never leaked into solid layers, never mixed with each other. Catches the failure mode where designs ship after partial grounding: most of the spec researched, the design feels finished, and the unresearched remainder holds the deal-breaker. Invoke with `/pedantic <target>` (e.g. `/pedantic review this design doc`, `/pedantic review the SDK design`, `/pedantic review this PR`). Probes cover logical structure (definitions, assumptions, boundaries, contradictions, unfalsifiability, vague quantifiers, counterexamples), epistemic honesty (researchable vs. discoverable-only-by-doing), bedrock integrity (assumed-bedrock, leaked uncertainty, mixed unclarity), and design pathology (YAGNI, wrong-layer abstraction, unclear responsibility, fragmentation, over-engineering). Use when you want a hard critique of a plan, design doc, technical doc, code change, or PR description — not a copy edit, not a vibe check.

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 PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the 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。

Reviews PR(s) using comprehensive review guidelines including security, correctness, clean code, TypeScript, React patterns, i18n/RTL, performance, and accessibility. Use when reviewing pull requests or code changes.

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, verify, or audit a report, manuscript, or analysis in the workspace for traceability — resolving citations, flagging numbers with no source, and checking figures against the code that generated them. Emits a structured review block the app renders as reviewer findings. Verifies traceability, never "correctness".

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 performance testing review multi agent 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。

You are a PR optimization expert specializing in creating high-quality pull requests that facilitate efficient code reviews. Generate comprehensive PR descriptions, automate review processes, and ensure PRs follow best practices for clarity, size, and reviewability.

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 comprehensive review full 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。

Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.

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 UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", "review UX", or "check my site against best practices".

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。

Structured literature search + synthesis with citation extraction, thematic clustering, and gap identification. Use when user says "find papers on X", "do a lit review", "what's the literature on...", "summarize what we know about...", "where's the gap in this field", "review recent work on Y". Produces a written review with BibTeX-ready citations. Uses WebSearch/WebFetch for recent work.

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 R code review protocol for `.R` scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, tidyverse idioms, and professional standards; produces a report without editing. Use when user says "review this R script", "check the R code", "audit the analysis code", "code review on the R", or when an R file is touched as part of a paper submission. NOT for running the code — pair with `/audit-reproducibility` for numeric verification.

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。

Holistic pedagogical review of a lecture deck (`.qmd` or `.tex`). Checks narrative arc, prerequisite assumptions, worked examples, notation clarity, and deck-level pacing. Use when user says "pedagogy review", "does this teach well?", "is the flow right?", "will students follow?", "review the narrative", or before teaching a deck for the first time. Read-only; produces a report.

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。

AI DevKit · Review code, skills, and prompts for security vulnerabilities — OWASP Top 10, prompt injection, business logic flaws, and insecure defaults. Use when reviewing PRs, auditing modules, reviewing AI skills/prompts, or preparing for release.

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。

Confirm a change before merge. `/check verify` drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). `/check review` runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never edits 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。

Ships pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size/scope checks, minimal-diff implementation, AI-disclosure PR descriptions, and rebase or bot-review replies. Use for 提 PR / 上游 PR / 贡献代码, "open a PR", "fix this upstream", "rebase against main", "respond to the bot review". Not for reviewing PRs as maintainer (use github-review-pr) or general GitHub CRUD (use github-ops).

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。