「edge cases」の検索結果

Use when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

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。

Provides patterns for testing utility classes, static methods, and helper functions. Validates pure functions, null handling, edge cases, and boundary conditions. Generates AssertJ assertions and @ParameterizedTest for string utils, math utils, validators, and collection helpers. Use when testing utils, test helpers, helper functions, static methods, or verifying utility code correctness.

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。

Performs symbolic execution to detect potential errors by exploring execution paths, solving path constraints, and generating test inputs. Use when you need to analyze code for bugs like null dereferences, division by zero, buffer overflows, or assertion violations. Also use to generate test inputs that exercise different code paths, find edge cases, or explore all reachable program states. Supports Python, Java, and C/C++ through manual symbolic execution techniques and integration with tools like KLEE, angr, Z3, and Symbolic PathFinder.

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。

Automatically generates comprehensive unit tests for functions, classes, and modules. Use when you need to create tests for Python (pytest, unittest) or Java (JUnit, TestNG) code. Generates tests with comprehensive coverage including happy paths, edge cases, and error conditions. Analyzes existing test patterns in the codebase to match style and conventions. Supports mocking, parameterized tests, fixtures, and follows best practices for each framework.

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。

Iteratively enhance user requirements into clear, complete, actionable specifications through analysis and clarification. Use when: (1) Users provide initial requirements that need refinement, (2) Requirements are vague, incomplete, or ambiguous, (3) Creating formal specifications from informal descriptions, (4) Identifying missing constraints, edge cases, or acceptance criteria, (5) Clarifying assumptions and implicit dependencies, or (6) Preparing requirements for design, implementation, or verification. Operates interactively: analyze → ask clarifying questions → refine based on responses.

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 targeted test inputs to reach specific code paths and hard-to-reach behaviors in Python code. Use when: (1) Targeting uncovered branches or specific execution paths, (2) Need coverage-guided test generation, (3) Want to leverage LLM understanding of code semantics for meaningful test inputs, (4) Testing boundary conditions and edge cases systematically, (5) Combining symbolic reasoning with fuzzing. Provides path analysis, constraint solving, coverage-guided strategies, and LLM-driven semantic generation for comprehensive test input creation.

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 and analyzes ambiguous language in software requirements and user stories. Use when reviewing requirements documents, user stories, specifications, or any software requirement text to identify vague quantifiers, unclear scope, undefined terms, missing edge cases, subjective language, and incomplete specifications. Provides detailed analysis with clarifying questions and suggested improvements.

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 existing test suites and source code to suggest additional unit tests that improve test coverage. Use this skill when working with test files and source code to identify untested code paths, missing edge cases, uncovered branches, untested error conditions, and gaps in test coverage. Supports major testing frameworks (pytest, Jest, JUnit, Go testing, etc.) and generates targeted test suggestions based on coverage analysis.

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 detailed feature specifications with functional requirements, edge cases, data models, API contracts, and UX flows. Create comprehensive technical specifications that enable clear 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 when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

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。

Translate a vague request or GitHub issue into a concrete, testable spec using five structured elements (problem, scope, acceptance criteria, edge cases, success criterion) before writing any code. Prevents scope creep, PR churn, and mid-implementation pivots.

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。

Generates edge case, failure mode, and spec-driven test cases. Covers boundary values, nil inputs, concurrency, resource exhaustion, malformed data, and requirement-linked traceability tests. Use after happy-path tests exist and before claiming coverage is complete, when requirements lack tests, or before a security 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。

Checkable-ish surface presentation signals a reviewer notices first — duplicate/near-identical tables, leftover pipeline/template strings, too-few or LLM-looking figures, and page-padding. AUXILIARY ONLY and weak by design: a deterministic pass (tools/check_presentation.py — dup-table + pipeline-artifact) plus a fresh cross-model GROSS-cases-only semantic pass (thin-float, LLM-figure, page-padding), every above-info finding span-anchored to the evidence ledger (claims.json). The adjudicator CAPS everything at minor (SURFACE_ONLY_SKILLS + SURFACE_PATTERNS) — these contribute at most SOFT_FLAGS, never a HARD verdict — default false_positive_risk:high. NOTE: the pure AI writing-STYLE impressions (AI-flavor prose, defensive 'not-X-but-Y' hedging, narrative-arc, jargon-stuffing, invented codenames) MOVED to the zero-verdict-weight AIS track — for those use skills/ai-style-impressions, NOT this. Emits presentation-signals.findings.json; NEVER computes the verdict. Triggers: "presentation signals", "surface check", "duplicate tables", "排版信号".

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 starter unit tests for a small function or module. Use when a junior developer needs test scaffolding and edge cases.

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 developer handoff specifications with measurements, behaviors, assets, and edge cases.

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 unit tests for untested branches and edge cases. Use when coverage is low, CI flags gaps, or a release needs hardening. Not for integration/E2E suites, framework migrations, or fixing production bugs.

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 a candidate finding falls into a noisy category - the do-not-report list, the precedents that settle recurring edge cases, and the narrow exceptions where an excluded category still counts

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。

Runtime QA of a change: start the app, test acceptance criteria and edge cases, and report evidence. Use for "test this", "QA", "does it work", exploratory checks, or post-review runtime verification. Not static code 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。

Generate a soak test protocol for extended play sessions. Defines what to observe, measure, and log during long play sessions to surface slow leaks, fatigue effects, and edge cases that only appear after sustained play. Primarily used in Polish and Release phases.

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。

Runs one or more installed review lenses — adversarial critique, edge cases, verification gaps, structure, prose — and reports triaged findings. Use when, and only when, the user asks you to review a diff, a pull request, or an artifact — code or documents, one or many — and actually says "review"; an explicit skill:bmad-review directive from another skill counts as that ask. A request to act on feedback from an earlier review is a change, not a review. Never invoke this uninvited, including on edits you just made.

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。

Audits Solidity liquidation mechanisms for denial of service vulnerabilities including unbounded loops over positions causing out-of-gas reverts, data structure corruption preventing liquidation, front-running to block liquidation via nonce changes or self-liquidation, pending withdrawals forcing reverts, malicious ERC721/ERC20 callback reverts, collateral in external vaults not seized, insufficient insurance fund blocking liquidation, fixed bonus exceeding available collateral, incorrect decimal handling, conflicting nonReentrant modifiers, zero value transfer reverts, token deny list issues, and single borrower edge cases

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。

Decision framework for choosing between regex and LLM when parsing structured text — start with regex, add LLM only for low-confidence edge cases.

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。