「review」の検索結果

原始人スタイル subagent への委譲判断ガイド。`genshijin-investigator` (コード位置特定)、 `genshijin-builder` (1-2ファイル編集)、`genshijin-reviewer` (diff レビュー) を inline作業 or vanilla `Explore` の代わりにスポーンするタイミングを示す。subagent 出力は原始人圧縮 → 主コンテキストに戻る tool-result が約60%縮小 → 長セッション持続。 Trigger: 「subagent 委譲」「genshijin-crew 使用」「investigator/builder/reviewer 起動」「コンテキスト節約」「圧縮 agent 出力」。

Report how many problems the two brains found: mutual review (the other model checks the work, from the peer-review records) and self-check (an agent finds its own error in its own conversation, judged by that agent's own model), side by side. Use when the owner asks whether the second agent or the reviews are worth it, or wants the week's review results.

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。

Guides systematic review of processing documentation for completeness against GDPR Articles 5, 13-14, 24, 28, and 30. Activate when auditing documentation or preparing for inspections. Keywords: documentation review, processing records, completeness, privacy notices, RoPA.

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 AAS stack manifests, preview plans and selection evidence in Workbench without applying 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。

Review an implemented RFC in a fresh context against its acceptance criteria, RULES.md and the test plan, and save the review to reviews/.

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-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not plan the structural change a root cause calls for — use plan-a-change. Does not map bounded contexts or domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.

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。

Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-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。

Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural 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。

Write code through a disciplined, BDD-framed Test-Driven Development loop: build a behavior test list, then drive each behavior through red-green-refactor with an enforced observed-failure gate. Use when the user wants to implement, build, or write code test-first, "do TDD", follow "red-green-refactor", drive code from tests, choose the next test by the Transformation Priority Premise (TPP) or ZOMBIES ordering, or grow a feature behavior-by-behavior with tests leading. This skill writes and changes code; it does not produce a test plan document (use automated-test-planning, or manual-test-planning for a plan a person runs by hand), review or audit existing code (use code-review), restructure existing code outside a TDD loop (use refactor, or plan-a-change to plan a multi-module restructure), specify what a feature should do (use plan-a-feature), or find the root cause of a bug (use investigate). Runs its loop to completion without pausing for review; to review each behavior as it lands, use pairing.

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 before an agent-produced diff is committed, pushed, opened as a PR, merged, landed, or applied to user files when explicit implementation approval is missing. Trigger for review gate, review pack, approve before landing, diff first then land, human approval, merge gate, commit gate, push gate, or PR readiness. Produces a concise review pack, records risks and verification, and blocks landing until a human explicitly approves or approves with required 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。

Adversarial code review using the opposite model. Spawns 1–3 reviewers on the opposing model (Claude spawns Codex, Codex spawns Claude) to challenge work from distinct critical lenses. Triggers: "adversarial 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。

Adversarial code review using the opposite model's CLI. Spawns 1–3 reviewers on the opposing model (Codex sessions typically spawn Claude; Claude sessions spawn Codex) to challenge work from distinct critical lenses. Triggers: "adversarial 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。

Review test quality and coverage. Use when the user says "test review" or "review tests"

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。

Evaluate code (especially LLM-generated) for structural simplicity using Rich Hickey's "Simple Made Easy" framework. Use this skill whenever reviewing a PR, diff, or code snippet for accidental complexity — particularly when the code was generated by an AI coding assistant and line-by-line review isn't feasible. Also use when the user asks about complecting, simplicity vs. easiness, structural coupling, or concept deduplication. Trigger on phrases like "is this simple", "does this complect", "review for complexity", "structural analysis", or any reference to Hickey, Simple Made Easy, or grey-box 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 Grok 4.5 as the required external design advisor when a task needs UI critique, UX critique, component-choice review, interaction-flow review, design imagery markdown, art direction, visual hierarchy judgment, design-system fit, color/type/layout suggestions, HTML mockups, SVG icons, handwritten SVG wordmarks, or file-based feedback on existing UI. Trigger on requests like "design a page", "generate design imagery", "give design advice", "optimize this UI", "improve UX", "optimize user flow", "review interaction", "check usability", "reduce friction", "choose the right component", "review this design", "create an icon", "suggest colors", "UI mockup", "visual direction", "lettering", "wordmark", "handwritten logo", or when another agent needs a second opinion on visual or interaction 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。

Manage persistent coding sessions across Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity (agy), Cursor, and OpenCode engines. Use when orchestrating multi-engine coding agents, starting/sending/stopping sessions, running multi-agent council collaborations, cross-session messaging, ultraplan deep planning, ultrareview parallel code review, autoloop autonomous workspace iteration, ultraapp building deployable web apps from a structured Q&A interview, switching models/tools at runtime, exposing the orchestrator's 69 tools as an MCP server to Hermes Agent / Claude Desktop / Cursor / Cline / Continue / Zed / Windsurf / Goose, or running as an Agent Client Protocol (ACP) agent that Zed / JetBrains / Neovim / Emacs / VS Code / dsh can drive directly. Triggers on "start a session", "send to session", "run council", "ultraplan", "ultrareview", "autoloop", "ultraapp", "Forge tab", "build a web app", "one-click app", "AppSpec", "autonomous iteration", "iterate until goal", "deep paper review", "auto research", "switch model", "multi-agent", "coding session", "session inbox", "cursor agent", "opencode", "mcp server", "clawo-mcp", "hermes mcp", "model context protocol", "ultracode", "dynamic workflow", "fanout", "fan-out", "best-of-N", "steer turn", "interrupt turn", "fork thread", "rollback turns", "acp", "agent client protocol", "clawo acp", "zed agent", "jetbrains agent", "external agent", "dsh subagent", "deepseek harness".

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 WooCommerce code changes for coding standards compliance. Use when reviewing code locally, performing automated PR reviews, or checking code quality in WooCommerce projects.

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。

Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Use for receiving feedback, requesting code-reviewer subagent reviews, or preventing false completion claims in pull requests.

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。

Lightweight standalone design spec for AI coding agents: codebase scan → bounded clarify pass (3–5 questions, not a grill) → reviewed design doc written to docs/plans/ → independent scored review → stop. No task board, no build. Use when you want a spec to discuss, hand off, or review before committing to implementation. Chains into absolute-work when ready to build. Triggers on "absolute spec", "write a spec", "spec out this feature", "draft a design doc", "I want a spec to hand off / review, don't build it yet".

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 review response strategy guide for RebuttalStudio. Use when developing response strategies for reviewer comments, deciding how to classify concerns, or choosing between Accept/Defend/Clarify/Experiment approaches at any stage of the rebuttal pipeline.

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。

Conduct a structured literature review on a given topic by defining a search strategy, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracting key findings, and synthesizing results into a coherent academic review. Use when the user requests literature review or provides relevant inputs for this workflow.

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。

Analyze customer reviews for local businesses on Google Maps. Covers review extraction, sentiment patterns, rating distribution, common complaints, and competitor review comparison for local business intelligence and reputation management.

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, implement, or review review animations work with format, accessibility, performance, and visual-verification controls. Use when the requested deliverable depends on review animations.

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。

Plan, implement, or review final release review work in an existing codebase with compatibility, security, and verification controls. Use when the user explicitly requests final release review 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。