「viewer」の検索結果

Web サーバ（nginx/apache、Linux 中心）の Phase 1 設定セキュリティレビュー。 target_profile.yaml で対象を確定し、MANIFEST.txt + manifest_attestation.txt で証跡 integrity を検証。 SSH 直接または証跡受領モードで 9 観点 (OS/リソース/ログ/ネットワーク/サービス/認証/監視/バックアップ/証明書) を read-only 走査。6 階層ガード (allowed/conditional/conditional_sensitive/ask-first/exceptional_sensitive_read/forbidden)、 3 軸補助 (Exploitability/Blast Radius/Service Criticality) の重大度判定、 observation_status による未確認の独立管理、evidence_dir/raw_evidence_store 分離、自己レビュー必須。 Windows/IIS は v1 hard fail。 Use when: Web サーバの設定セキュリティレビュー、Phase 1 監査、nginx/apache 構成監査、 EOL ランタイム調査、ログローテーション不備調査、ドキュメントルート漏えい調査。

This skill should be used when reviewing vendor estimates for software development projects. Use this skill when you need to evaluate whether a vendor's cost estimate, timeline, and approach are reasonable and whether the project is likely to succeed. This skill helps identify gaps, risks, overestimates, underestimates, and unfavorable contract terms. It generates comprehensive Markdown review reports with actionable recommendations to optimize costs while ensuring project success.

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 meeting minutes documents for completeness, action item clarity, decision documentation, and consistency with source materials like hearing sheets. Use when validating meeting minutes quality or preparing minutes for distribution.

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 this skill when you need to review presentation materials from an audience perspective to improve their quality and effectiveness. Evaluates content clarity, visual design, logical flow, engagement factors, and Marp technical compatibility. Triggers include "review my presentation", "check my slides", "presentation feedback", or when a user has completed a draft presentation and wants comprehensive quality 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 this skill for critical code review that focuses on whether the code actually works correctly and achieves the expected results - not just whether it matches a design document. This skill assumes designs can be wrong, finds bugs the design didn't anticipate, and verifies end-to-end correctness. Triggers include "critical code review", "deep code review", "verify this implementation works", "find bugs in this code", or reviewing implementation against requirements. NOTE - Security review is OUT OF SCOPE; use a dedicated security review skill for that purpose.

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 skills in any project using a dual-axis method: (1) deterministic code-based checks (structure, scripts, tests, execution safety) and (2) LLM deep review findings. Use when you need reproducible quality scoring for `skills/*/SKILL.md`, want to gate merges with a score threshold (for example 90+), or need concrete improvement items for low-scoring skills. Works across projects via --project-root.

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。

設計文書、分析レポート、報告書などを批判的な視点で徹底レビューするスキル。 6つの異なる立場（開発者、PM、顧客、QA、セキュリティ、運用）のペルソナを持つサブエージェントが並列でレビューを実行し、 「本当にそうか？」「根拠は何か？」「テストできるか？」「運用できるか？」という視点で 曖昧さ、根拠不足、論理飛躍、テスト不能、セキュリティリスク、運用懸念を検出する。 Use when reviewing design documents, analysis reports, incident reports, or any document requiring rigorous validation of claims and evidence.

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".

Professional contract review skill for business agreements including NDAs, MSAs, SLAs, SOWs, and software license agreements. Provides systematic clause-by-clause analysis, risk assessment with quantified scoring, red flag detection, and negotiation guidance. Use this skill when reviewing vendor contracts, partnership agreements, service agreements, or any business contract requiring risk evaluation and negotiation preparation. Triggers include "review this contract", "analyze this NDA", "check this agreement for risks", "prepare for contract negotiation", or when evaluating terms and conditions.

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。

OpenAI Codex CLIを使用してドキュメントやコードのレビューを依頼するスキル。GPT-5.5モデルをxhigh推論モードで呼び出し、深い分析によるレビューを実行。レビュー結果を指定フォルダに出力し、その内容を確認・分析する機能を提供。コードレビュー、ドキュメントレビュー、設計書レビュー、テスト計画レビューなど、専門的なレビューが必要な場面で使用。

Use when evaluating, designing, drafting, revising, stress-testing, or preparing academic articles, empirical research reports, literature reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, journal submissions, reviewer responses, research methods, sampling, measurement, analysis, publication readiness, or citation/source audits.

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。

A six-year-old code reviewer who asks "why?" about everything. Catches over-engineering, confusing names, and unnecessary complexity. Output is a 1-2 line summary of the request as a whole: how is the file? Is the class nice? Is the function correct?

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。

A six-year-old code reviewer who asks "why?" about everything. Catches over-engineering, confusing names, and unnecessary complexity, then corrects the code according to the language spec, but through kids eyes, maintaining simplicity and readability.

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。

A six-year-old code reviewer who asks "why?" about everything. Catches over-engineering, confusing names, and unnecessary complexity. To invoke, say `6yo`.

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。

価値提案（誰に/何のために/なぜ勝てる）をレビューし、曖昧さ・矛盾・証拠不足を洗い出して、メッセージとMVPを磨くために使う。

Work the review of a research run with rs_review — read the manuscript and record the panel's concerns with the evidence that grounds each one, keep the author's reply and the re-review's finding in their separate columns, run the devil's advocate with the concession threshold the tool enforces, and write the panel report and traceability matrix a response-to-reviewers letter is built from. Use when a document is ready for review, when a concern has to be answered or re-reviewed, or when an attack or a concession is being recorded.

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。

Compress review pressure into the right next action instead of more code by default. Classify findings, reject non-liabilities, and choose proof-only vs minimal-fix vs refactor-kernel, preventing one-patch-per-comment churn. Use after a code review — PR comments, reviewer suggestions, or audit findings — and especially when you are about to reflexively patch every comment.

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。

Detects deeply nested loops with duplicated inline logic and recommends extracting into small, named functions. Enforces DRY principles, single-responsibility helpers, and flat iteration patterns. Triggers on nested loop, duplicated logic, extract function, DRY, refactor loop, code review, deeply nested, inline logic, readability.

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-based multi-model strategy. The model catalog lives in a local configuration file instead of the skill text -- roles (thinker/decision-maker, long-running worker, draft generator, reviewer/acceptance, escalation), reasoning effort as an independent axis, mandatory review for draft models, provider switching for independent reviews, budgets, delegation flow, and cost/quality of small workers.

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。

Rollenbasierte Multi-Modell-Strategie. Modellkatalog liegt in einer lokalen Konfigurationsdatei statt im Skill-Text -- Rollen (Denker/Entscheider, Dauer-Worker, Entwurfsgenerator, Reviewer/Abnahme, Eskalation), Reasoning-Effort als eigene Achse, Abnahmepflicht für Entwurfsmodelle, Anbieterwechsel für unabhängige Reviews, Kontingente, Delegationsablauf und Kosten/Qualität kleiner Worker.

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。

Builds an evidence map for one document, section or contested claim: every factual claim extracted verbatim and numbered, its supporting passage in the supplied sources or UNKNOWN, the strength of that support as evidenced, contradictions between sources, and the specific question or document that would close each gap, returned in the chat as Markdown tables for the author or reviewer. Use when the user asks to "check what this document actually proves", "map the evidence behind these claims", "which of these statements are supported", "build an evidence map", "what would we need to back this up" or "is this claim substantiated". Do not use for requesting evidence of security controls from control owners, use control-evidence-request-pack instead. 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。

Turns sustainability or ESG reports the user provides into a DRAFT question pack for reviewers: every quantitative disclosure as stated with unit, period, boundary and page, year-over-year changes computed only from the stated figures with the arithmetic shown, targets with stated and computed progress, restatements and inconsistencies, gaps and specific questions to the report owner. No assurance, accuracy or conformance verdict. Use when the user asks to "prepare review questions on our sustainability report", "what changed year on year in this ESG report", "check the figures in this report before it goes to the board", "find the gaps in this ESG disclosure" or "build a question pack for the report owner". Do not use for reviewing marketing text against environmental-claim rules, use green-claims-review instead. 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。

Reviews one SKILL.md against the format rules and returns a findings table: strict YAML front matter with exactly name and description, name equal to the folder, description as the trigger, the eight-heading skeleton, capability-neutral wording, safety boundaries. Each finding carries severity, rule identifier, location, quoted evidence and replacement text; the verdict READY, REVISE or BLOCKED is an apparent state and the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "review this SKILL.md", "check my skill file before upload", "lint this skill description", "validate the front matter of this skill" or "score this skill folder". Do not use to write an agent's instructions field, use agent-instructions-drafter instead; for injection or leakage exposures use agent-instructions-red-team; for launch tests use agent-evaluation-plan. 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。

Drafts the instructions field of a declarative agent that orchestrates a set of custom skills, under a character cap (default 8,000), from the skills' names and descriptions: role and scope, one routing rule per skill, workflow order, gates written as workflow holds, global rules, output format and what the agent never does. Returns the text in a fenced block with its character count labelled counted or estimated, plus a skill inventory, routing table, gate table, rules trace and open questions for the owner. Use when the user asks to "write the instructions for my agent", "draft a system prompt that ties these skills together", "tighten these agent instructions to fit the cap", "how should the agent route between these skills" or "revise my agent's orchestration text". Do not use to review a single SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer instead. 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。