1.2万 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Review touched Rust files for prose-comment quality, rustdoc accuracy, and manually chopped comment wrapping. Use when a broad review needs a dedicated Rust prose/rustdoc pass or when the user asks for comment-quality review specifically.
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 user-facing docs, CLI reference text, examples, and scaffolds for truthfulness, prose quality, and RFC leakage. Use when a broad review needs a dedicated docs/claims pass or when the user asks for docs-truth review specifically.
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。
Perform a holistic, human-reviewer-style critique of the currently staged Git changes (or, with `--unstaged`, of the unstaged and untracked changes, with `--branch`, of a branch against its base, or, with `--commit`, of a single commit) and emit an approve/reject verdict with prioritized, severity-tagged, line-cited findings. Use when the user wants the staged diff, a branch, or a commit "reviewed", "critiqued", or "code-reviewed".
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 opening a PR, or whenever asked to self-review a diffusers contribution. Applies the same rubric as the `@claude` CI (checks the diff against references/review-rules.md, traces call paths for dead code). Reports findings grouped by severity, flagging what to fix before submitting (blocking issues + dead code) vs what to leave for the actual review. Report-only — does not edit files.
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。
Discover, wait for, sign in, create specific user data, and assert a PR preview deploy. Use on medium or high risk PRs, after pushing a ready-for-review PR, or when the user asks to test the preview URL.
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。
Handle PR review feedback - understand reviewer comments, research their concerns, and help the user address them. The LLM explains what reviewers want and why; the user decides how to respond and writes the code. Use when you receive review comments on a submitted PR. Not for opening the PR in the first place, which is oss-submit-pr. If the feedback is a failing CI job, use oss-debug-ci.
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 reviewing, debugging, or hardening Shell/Bash scripts in this repo (.github/workflows/*.yml steps, website build scripts, or any *.sh file) or when asked to "review bash", "revisa el script", "shellcheck", or "revisa el pipeline shell". Reviews for robustness, error handling, quoting, portability, injection, and CI-friendliness, and ends with what a CI failure or a hostile input would catch.
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 says "review bugs", "/review-bugs", "pull new bugs", "what was reported in Bugs", "update the bug list", or asks for an auto-review of reported bugs. Pulls the new messages from the Voxt Bugs and Bugs (Mobile) chats, turns them into entries in docs/bugs.md, reconciles the list with GitHub issues, pull requests and dev commits, moves finished bugs to docs/bugs-closed.md, and lists what needs a human decision.
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。
Generate A-share end-of-day market review reports with Pandadata data, covering trade-date checks, index performance and valuation, market breadth, limit-up/down sentiment, industries/concepts, 龙虎榜, block trades, margin financing, northbound holdings, risk notes, and optional scheduled after-close automation. Use when the user asks for 今日复盘, 收盘总结, 每日市场报告, A股复盘, 龙虎榜复盘, 北向资金动向, or to set up an automated daily market 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。
Structured review process for Remotion video implementations. Analyzes spec compliance, detects common timing/easing issues, validates asset quality, and provides prioritized revision lists. Use when reviewing Remotion code against design specs or performing quality assurance on video compositions. Trigger phrases "review video code", "check spec compliance", "audit Remotion implementation".
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 for a weekly operating review (Friday wrap or Monday plan) — review progress against the 90-day priorities, surface stalled open loops, and set next week's focus. This is the PERSONAL operating review; distinct from /audit (checks the kit's connections/freshness) and /level-up (finds one automation to build). Trigger on "/weekly", "weekly review", "weekly planning", "how did this week go", "plan my week".
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。
Cross-disciplinary polar Earth-system manuscript review orchestrator for Arctic, Antarctic and Southern Ocean research. Routes claims to existing domain reviewer skills and applies polar-specific evidence gates for sparse observations, cryosphere variables, product dependence, conservation budgets, coupled attribution, paleoclimate archives and regional research responsibility.
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。
Interactive code simulation engine that spawns ghost personas to review your code before it ships. Each ghost walks through your code line-by-line from a different failure perspective: The Adversary (race conditions, double-submit, idempotency), The Enterprise Edge (business logic gaps, multi-currency, B2B tax exemptions, locale), Chaos Monkey (timeouts, partial failures, network partitions, OOM). Produces a chaos timeline, structured bug report with severity ratings, and three resolution tiers (quick fix, robust architecture, generated test suite). Use this skill whenever the user mentions code review, PR review, "find bugs", "what could go wrong", "will this break", "is this safe", "stress test", "edge cases", design review, pre-merge check, dry run, chaos test, or wants a second opinion on any code — even if they don't explicitly ask for "ghost personas" or "simulation". Also trigger when someone pastes a code snippet with any question about its correctness or safety.
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。
Apply MCAF human-review-planning guidance for a large AI-generated code drop by reading the target area, tracing the natural user and system flows, identifying the riskiest boundaries, and prioritizing the files a human should inspect first. Use when the codebase is too large to review line-by-line and you need a practical review sequence plus a prioritized file list.
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 startup financial models for investor readiness: validates unit economics, stress-tests runway scenarios, and benchmarks metrics against stage-appropriate targets. Use the full review, about 10–15 minutes, when the user provides a financial model (Excel, CSV, or a model pasted as text) and asks for review, validation, runway analysis, or unit-economics scoring. For a single money question with figures to compute, such as 'how long do I have?' or 'is a 4x burn multiple bad?', use its shorter quick check, so the answer comes from the calculator and dated benchmarks, not mental arithmetic.
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。
Scores and strengthens startup pitch decks (pre-seed through Series A) against 35 investor-grade criteria grounded in Sequoia, DocSend, YC, a16z, and Carta data. Use when the user has shared a pitch deck (PDF, PPTX, markdown, pasted slide text, or a link to one) and asks for a review, score, feedback, or critique. A full review takes about 15–25 minutes, 40 or more for a long investor deck, so for a general pitch question with no deck, answer briefly in chat and offer the review instead of starting it. When it runs, score with the rubric, never with deck advice from memory.
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。
Process and act on code review feedback. Use when receiving 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。
Expert PE review of a submittal (shop drawings, product data, samples, equipment brochures) against specs, drawings, code questions and trade coordination. Produces findings with both sources, trade routing and a completeness gate. Triggers: 'review submittal', 'review shop drawings'.
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。
Construction document review with PE judgment — RFI research, submittal analysis, coordination checking, scope gap detection. Use when reviewing drawings, specs, submittals, or RFIs. Triggers: 'review', 'coordination', 'what's missing'.
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 code review checklist and pre-commit quality gates for PRs. Use when: reviewing pull requests, checking code quality, before committing code. Keywords: review, PR, pull request, checklist, quality, commit, 審查, 檢查, 簽入.
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。
Devil's Advocate stress-testing for code, architecture, PRs, and decisions. Surfaces hidden flaws through structured adversarial analysis with metacognitive depth. Use for high-stakes review, stress-testing choices, or when the user wants problems found deliberately. NOT for routine code review. Triggers on "스트레스 테스트", "stress test", "devil's advocate", "반론", "이거 괜찮아", "문제 없을까", "깊은 리뷰", "critical review", "adversarial".
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。
Specialized research and analysis prompt methodology for Claude. Provides 11 tested approaches (3 identity, 4 reasoning, 4 output) for data analysis, policy research, systematic evidence review, investigative research, and research-specific deliverables. Use when building prompts for quantitative data interpretation, evidence-based policy recommendations, literature reviews, causal analysis, hypothesis-driven investigation, or briefing documents. Trigger on: "prompt for data analysis," "research prompt," "policy brief prompt," "literature review prompt," "prompt for investigating," "systematic review prompt," "build a prompt for evidence synthesis," "causal analysis prompt," "briefing document prompt." Also use when user describes a research or analytical task and needs a structured Claude prompt for it. Do NOT use for evaluating existing prompts (use rootnode-prompt-validation if available) or auditing Claude Projects (use rootnode-project-audit if available).
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 a SKILL.md file for compliance with the agentskills.io standard. Checks YAML frontmatter fields, required sections, line count limits, procedure step format, and registry synchronization. Use when a new skill needs format validation before merge, an existing skill has been modified and requires re-validation, performing a batch audit of all skills in a domain, or reviewing a contributor's skill submission in a pull request.
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 web design for layout quality, typography, colour usage, spacing, responsive behaviour, brand consistency, and visual hierarchy. Covers design principles evaluation and improvement recommendations. Use when reviewing a design mockup before development, assessing an implemented site for design quality, providing feedback during a design review session, evaluating brand consistency, or checking responsive behaviour across breakpoints.
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。