「fixes」の検索結果

Audit a repo's agent context — CLAUDE.md files, codebase docs, skills, and tool/MCP designs — against Anthropic's Claude 5 context-engineering guidance ("unhobbling": Anthropic cut ~80% of Claude Code's system prompt with no eval loss). Finds overconstraint, conflicting instructions, redundancy, stale facts, and missing "unknown knowns"; produces a scored findings report with concrete rewrites, then applies approved fixes. Use when someone says "audit my CLAUDE.md", "context audit", "unhobble this repo", "review our agent docs/skills/tools", or after upgrading to Claude 5-generation 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。

Enhance and improve existing AI prompts using professional techniques from a 2,500+ prompt database. Adds detail, fixes structure, optimizes for specific models, and applies proven patterns from top-performing prompts. Use when user says "enhance my prompt", "improve this prompt", "make this prompt better", "optimize prompt", "fix my prompt", or "upgrade this prompt".

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。

Audit and score blog posts on a 5-category 100-point scoring system covering content quality, SEO optimization, E-E-A-T signals, technical elements, and AI citation readiness. Includes advisory editorial style diagnostics (sentence-length variation, configured phrase lists, vocabulary sampling) that never infer authorship or affect scoring. Supports export formats (markdown, JSON, table) and batch analysis with sorting. Generates prioritized recommendations (Critical/High/Medium/Low) with specific fixes. Works with any format (MDX, markdown, HTML, URL). Use when user says "analyze blog", "audit blog", "blog score", "check blog quality", "blog review", "rate this blog", "blog health 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。

Diagnose and repair LaTeX build failures in local projects or supplied logs. Make minimal source fixes, preserve scientific content and reference keys, and report actual build evidence and unresolved errors.

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。

Close the loop on a Caveman learn report — review the ranked token sinks and apply cost-lowering fixes (trim config, offload recurring context to cavemem) with per-edit consent. Use when the user runs "caveman learn", asks to lower their agent's token cost, wants to trim a heavy CLAUDE.md, or wants to offload context they re-paste every session into cavemem.

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。

Phase 7 of the SRS workflow. Runs srs_validator.py --dir on the generated SRS files, reports errors and warnings, auto-fixes ERRORs, and outputs a COMPLIANT / PARTIALLY COMPLIANT / NON-COMPLIANT 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。

Phase 7 of the SRS workflow. Runs srs_validator.py --dir on the generated SRS files, reports errors and warnings, auto-fixes ERRORs, and outputs a COMPLIANT / PARTIALLY COMPLIANT / NON-COMPLIANT 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。

Diagnoses and fixes CI failures and re-runs GitHub Actions jobs. Use when CI is failing, tests break in CI, lint errors block merging, a build fails, or jobs need re-running.

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。

Behavior-first feature development — use when building new capabilities, continuing feature work, or when work introduces new state or multiple user flows. Discovers desired behavior through examples and scenarios before implementation. Do NOT use for bug fixes, typos, or small isolated 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。

Root cause debugging before fixes. Use when investigating bugs, diagnosing test failures, troubleshooting unexpected behavior, or when previous fix attempts failed. Enforces investigate-first discipline.

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 structure without changing behavior. Use when refactoring, restructuring, simplifying, or extracting code. Also for reducing duplication, renaming for clarity, or addressing code smells. Enforces one change → test → commit cycle. NOT for style/formatting (use /lint), features, or bug fixes.

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。

Fully autonomous bug hunting pipeline — discover bugs in a scoped area using parallel subagents, independently triage each finding, fix confirmed issues with subagents, then audit all fixes against repo constraints and target platforms. Runs end-to-end without user interaction.

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。

xCloud Docker Deploy v1.4.1 — a confirmation-gated skill for preparing projects for xCloud. It inspects or changes files only after user consent, generates Docker/GHCR deployment files, fixes xCloud port rules, and routes live API work only after a separate explicit token-consent step.

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。

Diagnose failures in SKMTC sessions — no output, wrong output, error messages, failed bundle builds, parseIssues, "Registered definition mismatch", ref cycles, "Module not found" in generated code, or any other broken behavior. Applies across both CLI usage and generator authoring contexts. Use this skill when the user asks "why isn't my generator working", "no output for X", "wrong output", "what does this error mean", "manifest says X", "bundle failed", "INVALID_SCHEMA", "INVALID_DEPENDENCY_REF", "Registered definition mismatch", "Module not found" (in generated code), "ConfigValidationError", or reports any other SKMTC failure. This skill encodes a **verify-first epistemic stance** — read the manifest, check parseIssues, reproduce the failure before proposing fixes. Distinct from `skmtc-cli` and `skmtc-generator` which guide *doing*; this skill guides *diagnosing*.

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。

Write or change Go code in a repository that runs declscope, which shows as a .declscope.y*ml or baseline file, //declscope: comments, or declscope in CI. Read this before adding, naming or moving a declaration, a helper that several files use, or a test. Read it too before splitting a file, writing a //declscope: directive, or acting on a declscope diagnostic. Covers where code belongs, naming it accurately, and fixes that hide a problem.

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 encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes

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。

Safely push recovered issue-scoped fixes onto an existing PR branch without disturbing a dirty local workspace.

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。

Qualitative quality review of game design documents — answers "is this design good, and does it follow best practices?" — across all three GDD axes: systems, flows, and content types. Fans out adversarial lenses (completeness, clarity, pillar alignment, systems-math, fantasy-delivery, feasibility, scope) plus domain lenses that check it against the game-design rules, each prompted to find problems rather than validate; produces a severity-graded verdict and a two-bucket report (apply-ready fixes vs research), handed to /unikit-gd-apply or /unikit-gd-explore in one move. Scope is inferred: a named system, flow, or content type reviews that document; "all" runs a cross-document review. Use when the user wants a critique, quality judgment, or rules check of the design, e.g. "review the combat GDD", "review the onboarding flow". This is the subjective quality pass — for a mechanical consistency check (numbers, terms, IDs, references matching the registry) use /unikit-gd-verify.

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。

Mechanical consistency check for game design — answers "is the design consistent with itself?" — plus changed-scope impact analysis across all three GDD axes: systems, flows, and content types. Offline and deterministic: greps the facts registry against the documents (numbers, terms, IDs, duplicate & dangling references, roster↔disk, map freshness, Depends 3-way, status/version, AC presence, placeholder leaks, flow & content schema), and from a git diff computes which dependent systems, flows, and content a change affects. Scope is inferred: a named document checks that document; an unverified diff triggers a changed-scope pass; otherwise everything. Use when the user wants a consistency or impact check, e.g. "verify the design", "what did this change affect", "find broken references in the design". Conflicts triage into four tracks; the entailed fixes hand off to /unikit-gd-apply in one pass. This is the mechanical pass — for a subjective "is this design good" quality critique use /unikit-gd-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。

Proactive bug-hunting workflow. Assesses codebase risk through complexity, coverage, and structural analysis, then spawns focused investigators that write reproducing tests to validate suspected bugs. Thoroughness over speed. Advisory only — produces findings and proposes tickets; does not implement fixes.

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 audit. Dispatches an accessibility auditor to identify WCAG conformance gaps, prioritize by user impact, and recommend fixes. Advisory only — no changes made.

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。

Autonomous bug-elimination loop. Iteratively invokes /bug-hunt and /implement-batch until findings converge below an operator-specified severity floor. At termination, runs /review-test scoped to the run's new reproducing tests and fixes quality issues above the floor. Auto-approves /bug-hunt and /review-test ticket proposals; pulls the andon cord on contested findings, repeated implementation failure, hard-cap exhaustion, or breaking-change proposals. Optional /refactor finisher.

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。

Exploratory workflow for understanding problem spaces and drafting feature proposals, refactorings, or complex bug-fixes. Creates detailed tickets in your issue tracker without doing implementation 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。

Bug-fixing workflow that coordinates diagnosis, test-driven reproduction, root-cause analysis, and targeted fixes. Use when the user wants to fix a bug with thorough investigation and regression testing.

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。