「review」の検索結果

Uncorrelated Evaluator — 4軸ルーブリック専門エージェント（functionality-reviewer・code-reviewer・design-reviewer・originality-reviewer）と security-reviewer を5並列実行し、成果物を多面的に独立評価します。PASS / NEEDS WORK / BLOCKED 判定を返します。Self-leniency 防止のため、実装エージェントのコンテキストを引き継がない新規エージェントとして起動します。「レビューして」「評価して」「実装を確認して」などのリクエストで起動します。

Interactive developer experience plan review. Explores developer personas, benchmarks against competitors, designs magical moments, and traces friction points before scoring. Three modes: DX EXPANSION (competitive advantage), DX POLISH (bulletproof every touchpoint), DX TRIAGE (critical gaps only). Use when asked to "DX review", "developer experience audit", "devex review", or "API design review". Proactively suggest when the user has a plan for developer-facing products (APIs, CLIs, SDKs, libraries, platforms, docs). (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "dx review", "developer experience review", "devex review", "devex audit", "API design review", "onboarding 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。

Converts a markdown PR writeup or code review (one with ```diff fenced blocks and severity-tagged > [!BLOCKER]/[!MAJOR]/[!MINOR]/[!NIT] callouts) into a single-file 2-column HTML review — unified-diff on the left, severity-tagged annotation cards on the right, top jump-nav listing every finding, mandatory named reviewer footer. Triggers when the markdown-html-orchestrator classifies an input as REVIEW, or when invoked directly via /cs:md-review. Refuses without explicit --reviewer (a code review must name a human), refuses if no diff hunks present (route to md-document instead), and refuses to encode severity in color only (every badge ships color + icon + aria-label per WCAG 1.4.1). Use after orchestrator routing.

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] Agent or automation safety risks: review prompt, tool, secret, dependency, destructive-action, and explicit local plugin risks before agent or code execution. Use when the user says: security-safety-review, security safety review, ai coding safety, agent safety review, prompt injection review, tool permission review, secret exposure review, destructive action 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。

Use when explaining or planning around AISTATS peer review, OpenReview review release, author-reviewer discussion, reviewer volunteer expectations, reviewer confidentiality, decision criteria, meta-review dynamics, the statistician-heavy reviewer pool, and PMLR proceedings outcomes.

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。

Systematic academic paper review workflow covering self-review before submission and rebuttal writing after receiving reviewer feedback. Triggers on "review paper", "self-review", "write rebuttal", "respond to reviewers", "analyze review comments", "paper 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。

The art of reviewing code that improves both the codebase and the developer - sharing knowledge, maintaining standards, and building cultureUse when "code review, PR review, pull request, merge request, review comments, LGTM, review feedback, approve PR, request changes, review checklist, code quality, review standards, code-review, pull-request, PR, quality, standards, feedback, collaboration, mentoring" 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。

Independent review loop run before delivery in code work. An independent reviewer (Codex, or fresh Codex-style subagents) reads the whole PR against the approved outcome; the lead fixes in-scope functional findings and re-reviews until none remain. Its differentiator is independence and exhaustiveness — a reviewer that fails differently from the authors, run to clean — distinct from the recursive-refinement ladder. Invoked by the team lead from the unified pre-ship gate (code-mode and /swarm:refine) after the ship steps.

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。

Adversarial, security-first review of a pull request from an EXTERNAL or untrusted contributor — a fork PR, a first-time or unknown author, anyone without write access — before a maintainer merges it. Use this whenever you're reviewing, triaging, or deciding whether to merge a PR opened against tbh-meter by someone outside the maintainer team: 'review PR #123', 'someone opened a PR — is it safe to merge?', 'check this contributor's changes', 'can we take this fork PR?', 'is this contribution legit?'. This is supply-chain DEFENSE, not ordinary code review: every merged PR auto-updates onto every user's machine and ships a memory-reading .exe plus an unsandboxed Electron app, so the author and the PR description are UNTRUSTED and the diff is the only evidence. It posts its verdict as a real GitHub review — an inline comment pinned to each problematic line (via the pulls/reviews API), not just one summary comment. NOT for your own or a fellow maintainer's branch (use self-review for that), and prefer this over the generic review flow for anything coming from outside the team.

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。

App Store プレビュー動画を Remotion (React) で生成する Agent Team スキル。 video-director が構成を設計し、script-writer がナレーション台本を作成し、 motion-designer が Remotion コードを実装し、preview-reviewer がコードレビューし、 frame-inspector がレンダリング結果を目視検証する。 Use when: App Store プレビュー動画を作りたい、アプリのプロモーション動画を作りたい、 Remotion で動画を生成したい。 Triggers: "プレビュー動画", "App Store 動画", "アプリ動画", "preview movie", "Remotion", "動画作成", "app preview"

Review a pull request end-to-end using GitHub CLI. Covers diff analysis, commit history review, CI/CD check verification, severity-leveled feedback (blocking/suggestion/nit/praise), and gh pr review submission. Use when a pull request is assigned for review, performing a self-review before requesting others' input, conducting a second review after feedback is addressed, or auditing a merged PR for post-merge quality 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 marketing KPIs and produce an executive summary with insights, anomalies, and recommended actions using the Storytelling with Data framework (Cole Nussbaumer Knaflic). Every review starts with a Big Idea - one sentence capturing the insight, its implication, and why it matters. Use when the user asks for a KPI review, monthly metrics review, marketing dashboard review, "review last month's numbers", quarterly review, performance review, or wants to analyze marketing data. Reads kpis.md and any uploaded data files. For planning a campaign against these numbers, see campaign-brief. For the post-campaign learning loop, see retro. For setting the baseline itself, see brand-context.

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。

Extracts structured data from large sets of legal documents into tabular format for review, analysis, and reporting. Processes contracts, agreements, correspondence, filings, and other legal documents in bulk — extracting key terms, dates, parties, obligations, risks, and custom fields into organized tables. Use when conducting due diligence document review, bulk contract extraction, compliance audits across document sets, lease portfolio analysis, employment agreement review, regulatory filing review, or any task requiring structured extraction from multiple documents. Trigger keywords: tabular review, bulk extraction, document review table, data room review, batch document analysis, contract extraction, portfolio review, structured extraction, document comparison table.

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 GitHub PR with a single shallow correctness/security/breaking/AI-slop checklist and emits a verdict; optionally posts it via gh pr review. Use to review an external or teammate PR. NOT for deep pre-landing audit of your own diff (see mk:review); NOT for responding to received review comments (see mk:respond-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。

Multi-pass structural code review with adversarial analysis, scope-aware dispatch, adversarial persona passes, and forced-finding protocol. Supports input modes: branch diff (default), PR number (#123), commit hash, pending changes (--pending). Use when asked to "review this PR", "code review", "pre-landing review", "check my diff", or "review #123". Proactively suggest when the user is about to merge or land code changes. NOT for behavioral verification against a running build (see mk:evaluate); NOT for post-implementation simplification (see mk:simplify).

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 local git changes before opening a PR or merging. First review all local tracked and untracked files; if none exist, review the current branch against a requested base branch or the Git Town parent branch. Use zero to three review subagents only when risk, diff size, language specificity, or uncertainty justifies the token cost, then report high-confidence bugs, regressions, risky assumptions, and missing tests. Use when the user asks for code review, local review, branch sanity check, pre-PR review, or review of work-in-progress 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 for a multi-agent .NET code review - five parallel reviewers (correctness, performance, security/observability, data/messaging/integration, generalist) plus an adversarial maintainer that refutes weak findings. Requires the review agent roles registered by scripts/install-codex.sh. Keywords: dotnet review pipeline, multi-agent review, parallel reviewers, maintainer pushback, review this branch, cynical 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。

4人の異なる専門家ペルソナ（20年ベテランエンジニア、TDDエキスパート、Clean Codeエキスパート、バグハンター）で ソースコードを批判的にレビューするスキル。設計判断、テスト容易性、可読性、バグ検出の観点から コードの問題を検出し、改善提案を行う。Python/JavaScriptに対しては追加のチェックポイントを適用。 バグハンターは状態遷移、例外パス、依存関係、非同期競合に特化し、本番環境での問題を事前に検出する。 Use when reviewing source code from multiple expert perspectives to find design flaws, testability issues, code quality problems, and runtime bugs. Triggers: "critical code review", "multi-persona code review", "expert code review", "code quality assessment", "find bugs".

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. 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。

ISTQB/JSTQB のテストプロセス各工程の出口ゲートとして、工程成果物（test-plan.md / test-analysis.md / test-design.md / test-case.md / テスト実装 / test-execution-log.md / test-monitoring.md / test-summary-report.md）をレビューするスキル。決定論スクリプトの機械検査（トレーサビリティ ID 突合・テンプレ準拠）と test-reviewer サブエージェントの定性レビューを行い、利用者が通過/条件付き通過/差し戻しを判定して軽量記録 test-review-<工程>.md を残す。上流の仕様・基本設計（spec / design-doc 工程。docs/dev/<対象>/spec.md・basic-design.md）は機械検査と利用者判定のみの軽量ゲートとして扱う。各工程スキル（test-plan〜test-report / feature-spec / basic-design）が完了宣言の前に本スキルの実行を促す。ソースコード diff のレビュー（diff-review）とは別物で、対象はテストプロセスの成果物のみ。成果物の修正・代作はしない。/test-review <テスト対象名> [工程] で明示的に呼び出されたときのみ使用する。

Review a GitHub pull request from multiple perspectives in parallel, output only findings, then let the user pick which to fix in the same session. Use when the user asks to review a PR by number, mentions "PRレビュー" / "PR review" with a number, or invokes `/pr-review <number>`. Fans out subagents for absolute-rules, stop-slop, security, architecture, code-quality, testing, and ai-antipattern.

BROWSER REVIEW QA SKILL — Use the built-in browser/headless browser (puppeteer-core) to open a browser-runnable Cocos preview, switch preview targets, capture screenshots, and compare them with reference images. USE FOR: screen-driven QA only when the user has already prepared a Browser Review environment that can run in the browser (`http://localhost:7456`, LoadingScene/preview host/preview target wiring ready). DO NOT USE FOR: current Cocos Editor window screenshots, Editor Preview capture, compile errors, or pure log analysis. If the Browser Review environment is not ready, stop and remind the user to prepare it first.

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 database schema design and detect anti-patterns. Based on common RDB design knowledge and best practices. Supports Prisma, Drizzle, Rails, Django, Laravel, TypeORM, Sequelize, SQLAlchemy, and raw SQL (DDL). Use when the user says "review DB design", "check schema", "review table design", "review migration", "check for anti-patterns", "DB設計をレビューして", "スキーマを見て", "テーブル設計を確認して", "マイグレーションをレビューして", "アンチパターンがないか調べて", "この設計で問題ないか見て".

make review / make review-close があるプロジェクトで、Codex の PR レビューと修正を最大5周回す。「レビューループ」「review-loop」「make review で回して」で発火。各レビューを対象 commit と対応付け、根拠を確認して修正し、完了後にクローズする。