「correctness」の検索結果

Implement and review iOS 26+ SwiftUI Liquid Glass UI. Use when adopting Liquid Glass or checking its correctness, performance, and design fit.

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。

Evidence-first pull request judge that reviews a PR and posts one consolidated GitHub review with inline comments via the gh CLI. Runs the repo's own deterministic checks first, researches current official docs before any claim about external libraries or APIs, then reviews correctness, security, structural quality (code judo, spaghetti growth, file-size limits), and AI slop including useless code comments. Every finding must carry evidence, every comment passes a deterministic noise gate before posting, and the verdict (APPROVE, COMMENT, REQUEST_CHANGES) is weighed by findings. Use when asked to review a PR, judge this PR, review this branch or diff before merge, run the-judge, "revise esse PR", "faca o code review", or "julgue esse PR". Do NOT use for reviewing prose or documents, fixing CI failures, resolving merge conflicts, writing the fix itself, or responding to review comments (use gh-address-comments).

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 Claude Code and Codex hooks for validity, safety, and correctness across settings.json, hooks.json, config.toml, plugin, and skill or agent frontmatter hooks. Resolves each command, checks event names, handler types, matchers, exit-code and JSON decision strategy, and timeouts against each host's documented rules, then reviews hooks one by one. Use when setting up hooks, debugging a hook that never fires, never blocks, or hangs the agent, or doing a periodic hooks hygiene pass. Not for writing a new hook from scratch.

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。

Author and review GitHub Actions workflow YAML safely so syntactically-valid YAML can't ship a workflow that GitHub Actions refuses to run. USE FOR: editing, adding, or reviewing any file under .github/workflows/, writing run-name/name/if/env/run values that contain ${{ }} expressions, diagnosing a run that fails with 'This run likely failed because of a workflow file issue' and no jobs starting, deciding when a workflow scalar must be quoted, validating workflows with actionlint. DO NOT USE FOR: authoring application YAML unrelated to GitHub Actions, Azure Pipelines, GitLab CI, or non-workflow YAML. SCOPE: this skill covers *syntactic/structural* correctness of workflow YAML (quoting, parsing, actionlint); for *semantic and functional* workflow design (what a workflow should do, agentic-workflow behavior), see .github/agents/agentic-workflows.agent.md — the two are complementary. INVOKES: actionlint (downloaded pinned binary) plus git/grep for inspection.

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。

Validates custom dotnet new templates for correctness before publishing. Catches missing fields, parameter bugs, shortName conflicts, constraint issues, and common authoring mistakes that cause templates to fail silently. USE FOR: checking template.json files for errors before publishing or testing, diagnosing why a template doesn't appear after installation, reviewing template parameter definitions for type mismatches and missing defaults, finding shortName conflicts with dotnet CLI commands, validating post-action and constraint configuration. DO NOT USE FOR: finding or using existing templates (use template-discovery), creating projects from templates (use template-instantiation), creating templates from existing projects (use template-authoring).

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 and optimize application data access that uses Entity Framework Core (EF Core). Use for EF Core performance and correctness reviews of services, repositories, imports, and background jobs: slow or memory-heavy queries, excessive round-trips, hidden SaveChanges, premature materialization, dynamic query construction, result-graph tracking, bulk writes, DbContext lifetime or overlapping operations, search semantics, paging, raw SQL, and model/index coverage. Use whether or not EF Core owns the schema. For EF Core, not Dapper or raw ADO.NET.

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。

DO NOT INVOKE when the primary request explicitly asks to convert, migrate, modernize, or rewrite a legacy/old-style project to SDK style; use msbuild-modernization. Migration prompts often mention ToolsVersion, explicit Compile/Reference entries, packages.config, or Microsoft.CSharp.targets, but merely reviewing or auditing a file that contains those patterns remains in scope here. USE FOR broad review, audit, lint, or maintainability/correctness checks of project/build files, including custom targets; prioritized cross-cutting findings; discrete anti-patterns; F# ordering/FS0039; cross-platform paths; and focused Import safety verdicts. Review/audit is analysis-only unless fixes are requested. For concrete property/item defects use property-patterns/item-management; use target-authoring for implementation and extension-points for NuGet auto-import/layout discovery. Exclude non-MSBuild systems.

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 agentic workflow changes for correctness, security posture, and optimization opportunities with compile, validation, and audit evidence.

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 pull requests to code-graph-rag, a multi-language code graph parser. Focuses on graph-edge correctness in language parsers, cross-language consistency, and test fixtures that actually exercise the fix.

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。

Publication-grade correctness and legibility rules for final-deliverable scientific figures, not exploratory plots. Use for a figure that will ship in a report, paper, export, or kept artifact. Covers data fidelity, label economy, color threading, chart choice, layout, and render-then-verify QA without imposing a visual house style. For multi-panel composition use `figure-composer`; for whole-paper ordering use `paper-narrative`.

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 the R code review protocol on R scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, and professional standards. Produces a report without editing files. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants their existing R code evaluated or audited — not when they want new analysis written. Triggers include: "review my R script", "check my R code", "is my code replication-ready", "audit this R file", "does this code follow conventions", "will this reproduce", "check my analysis script", "code review", "review-r", or when the user has an existing .R file and wants quality feedback rather than new 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。

Reviews whether a design is SOUND — solving the right problem, derived from its stated goals and constraints — and emits ranked, evidence-backed findings, not edits. Read when asked to 'review this design', 'is this design sound', 'pressure-test this proposal', 'do a design review', 'does this solve the right problem', 'poke holes in this spec', 'should we build this', or to critique a proposal / spec / ADR / architecture or product decision. Do NOT read when the user wants to AUTHOR one of these — routing a new proposal is frame-a-proposal, a spec is write-a-spec, a decision record is record-a-decision, a postmortem is write-a-postmortem. Do NOT read for code review of a diff, or to fact-check individual claims (that is a correctness pass, a different job).

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 the repository or a broad subsystem for security, correctness, and maintainability risks. Use for audit requests or /audit; use review for a specific change and vuln-check for a security-only assessment.

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 or de-slop concrete changes in ccch1mneyyy/dsh-TUI at maintainer level: PR numbers or URLs, branches, commit ranges, patch files, staged or unstaged worktrees, and scoped repository-hygiene requests. Use for evidence-first correctness, contract, repository-rule, process, and behavior-preserving cleanup review, including debug residue, dead or duplicate code, speculative abstractions, stale comments or tests, and unrelated diff churn. Do not use for abstract designs with no concrete repository artifact; use audit for repository-wide assessments and vuln-check for security-only checks.

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。

Check resolved dependencies and relevant code paths for security vulnerabilities. Use for security checks or /vuln-check; use audit for a broader correctness and maintainability assessment.

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 of a PR, branch, or your own uncommitted work across eight dimensions — security, correctness, test coverage, API/compatibility, usability, documentation, code quality, performance. Sizes the diff, reviews inline or fans out reviewers off a shared brief, verifies findings against code, reports a grouped list with a shape verdict, fixes on approval. Use for "review this PR", "/pr-review 3011", or a pre-flight self-review before submitting; add "thorough" for adversarial 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。

Guide a Chinese-speaking user through code or a PR while reviewing correctness. Trigger on 帮我review, 带我读代码, or an explicit implementation walkthrough.

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。

Implement, review, or improve SwiftUI features using the iOS 26+ Liquid Glass API. Use when asked to adopt Liquid Glass in new SwiftUI UI, refactor an existing feature to Liquid Glass, or review Liquid Glass usage for correctness, performance, and design alignment.

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。

Add or change a named Pallas/Mosaic kernel, including its reference implementation, correctness tests, wrapper, or requested tuning.

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 an explicitly identified Marin pull request against the repository's correctness and maintainability expectations.

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。

International / multilingual SEO audit focused on hreflang correctness: missing or broken return tags, wrong language/region codes, missing x-default, self-referencing errors, hreflang vs canonical conflicts, and inconsistent signals across HTML head, HTTP headers and XML sitemap. Also reviews URL structure (ccTLD vs subdirectory vs subdomain), language targeting and geo signals. Use whenever the user runs a multi-language or multi-region site and asks about hreflang, international or multilingual SEO, the wrong-language page showing in search, or duplicate content across country versions. Trigger on: "hreflang", "international SEO", "multilingual SEO", "multi-region", "wrong language in Google", "x-default", "ccTLD vs subdirectory", "geo targeting", "language targeting", "my English page shows for Thai users", "th/en page ranking in the wrong country", or any cross-language/cross-country ranking question. For full-site audits use /seo-analysis; for a single URL use /seo-page.

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。

Assess a GitHub issue or PR for demonstrated need, supported alternatives, correctness, and maintainer action. Desk review only.

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-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites).

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。

Default code-quality route for broad code review, PR review, maintainability, correctness, and regression-risk checks. Do not use as the primary route for dedicated OWASP/security audits, review-feedback handling, completion verification, AI-code cleanup, or TDD/test-first 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。