「human review」の検索結果

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。

Use when reviewing current branch for bugs before pushing or merging, when wanting a thorough multi-agent review of local changes, or when preparing work for human review. Not for codebase structure, not for code style, and not for fixing what it finds.

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。

LLM-assisted human-in-the-loop review. Make sense of a change, focus attention where it matters, test. Use when the user says "checkpoint", "human review", or "walk me through this change".

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 `--working-copy`, of all uncommitted 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 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。

Produce the rendered evidence a human-gated frontend PR owes its reviewer: capture each changed surface (plus the before state for anything modified, plus mobile width), then generate one self-contained local HTML page the founder can open and review without checking anything out. Use when a PR is gated by the "Frontend changes are HUMAN-GATED" section of CLAUDE.md, or when the user says "/design-gate", "screenshot evidence for this PR", "prep this for founder review", "build the design evidence page", "what does this look like before and after". The page comes from a template script, not hand-written markup. Output is session-local and never committed. Do NOT use for non-gated changes: typo/grammar/factual fixes in an unchanged block, dead link targets, alt/ARIA fixes with no visual change, cache-bust bumps, or refactors with no rendered diff.

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。

Propose the test(s) FIRST and get a human to sign off on the behaviour before writing the code — the test analog of /schema-review and /ui-proposal. For hand-written LOGIC in packages/* (apps opt-in, pocs exempt). Renders the proposed failing test as a reviewable contract, holds for lgtm/approve, then you write the code to make it green. Use when an agent is about to implement packages/* logic, or when asked to "write the test first", "TDD this", "agree on the test", run /test-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。

Reviews one deal's notes and timeline (CRM opportunity record, activity log, emails, meeting notes, forecast entries) for risk signals such as a single contact thread, no identified budget owner, slipped or missing dates, silence after a proposal, an undefined decision process or a competitor named late, and returns a DRAFT risk register: each signal with the quoted evidence and its date, a severity on a stated scale, and one proposed next action with an owner role for the user to decide on. Use when the user asks to "review the risks on this deal", "why is this opportunity stalling", "is this deal single-threaded", "deal health check before the forecast call" or "what should we do next on <opportunity>". Do not use for a whole-account plan, use account-plan-builder instead; for scoring early leads against a rubric use lead-qualification-scorer. 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 the instructions text and skills of a declarative agent, with its stated capabilities, knowledge sources and audience, for prompt-injection exposure, data-leakage paths, over-broad permissions and missing refusals, and returns an attack-surface map, a findings table with severity, quoted evidence and attack path, one pasteable fix per finding, a probe pack the owner can run and a refusal-coverage table. Use when the user asks to "red-team this agent", "check these instructions for prompt injection", "could this agent leak data", "review the permissions on my agent" or "what should this agent refuse". Do not use for checking a SKILL.md against the format rules, use skill-file-reviewer instead; do not use for designing the launch test set, use agent-evaluation-plan 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。

Reads a contract list (spreadsheet, CSV or pasted table) and returns a DRAFT renewal radar: each active contract's end date, notice deadline with its arithmetic, days remaining, renewal type, owner and the decision it needs as options, sorted by urgency, with owner action lists and a deadline calendar. Never renews, terminates, serves notice or recommends. Use when the user asks to "build a renewal tracker", "tell me what comes up for renewal", "work out when notice is due", "show me which contracts auto-renew" or "run the quarterly contract review". Do not use for reviewing one contract's full text or clauses, use contract-review-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。

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。

Reads an accounts payable exception list (mismatches, possible duplicates, missing or exhausted purchase orders, missing receipts, vendor or bank detail differences) with any invoice, purchase order and receipt data supplied, and returns a DRAFT action sheet: per line, the exception as stated, the facts as read, the difference where both sides exist, one proposed next action for the accounts payable clerk to perform, who or what it needs, and a draft query, with UNKNOWN wherever the data is silent. Use when the user asks to "review these invoice exceptions", "work through the AP exception queue", "what should I do with these blocked invoices", "propose next steps for the three-way match failures" or "sort out the duplicate and missing PO invoices". Do not use for a purchase order log screened for anomalies, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; for an expense claim against policy, use expense-policy-precheck. 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 an architecture or design decision record (ADR) from the discussion notes, design review minutes, chat threads and diagram descriptions the user provides: context, decision drivers, options considered with arguments as stated, the decision as the group worded it, consequences and a review date, with every factual claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so unsupported claims are marked for the author to substantiate. Use when the user asks to "write an ADR", "document the architecture decision", "record why we chose this design", "turn these design review notes into a decision record" or "draft the design decision log entry". Do not use for a business or governance decision with no technical design, use decision-memo-builder instead; for the change ticket that implements the decision, use change-request-pack. 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。

Runs twice in a PFD to P&ID job. Part 1, before gate G3, validates the discipline proposals for provenance, UNKNOWN handling, conflicts, prohibited content and cross-section consistency and returns results and blocking items. Part 2, before gate G5, assembles the review package, with job header, gate record, every register and proposal, consolidated UNKNOWN list, feedback log and closing statement. Use when the user asks to "validate the enrichment", "run validation before G3", "assemble the review package" or "build the G5 package". Do not use for the readiness map, use pid-tool-readiness-mapping instead; do not use to produce a missing discipline section, use the discipline skill that owns it. 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。

Pre-checks one expense claim or travel plan, line by line, against the expense or travel policy the user supplies, and returns a DRAFT precheck sheet: the policy clause matched to each line, the limit quoted as the policy states it, whether the amount sits within, at or outside that limit, missing receipts, pre-approvals or justifications, and neutral questions for the approver and the claimant, with UNKNOWN wherever the policy or the claim is silent. Use when the user asks to "check this expense claim against policy", "pre-check my travel request", "is this claim within policy", "review these expenses before I submit them", "what receipts or approvals are missing" or "prepare the approver's questions for this claim". Do not use for a purchase order log or spend extract, use purchase-order-anomaly-review instead; do not use to compare a policy against a standard or regulation, use policy-gap-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。

Personal App-in-Skill customer-support desk (help desk) that triages incoming support tickets from email, WhatsApp, web chat, contact forms, and WeChat, drafts KB-grounded replies, and proposes actions, then holds every send behind a human approval queue with a pre-send quality gate (support-qa) that outputs SHIP/FIX/BLOCK, plus SLA and CSAT tracking. Use when the user invokes $kelly-support or /kelly-support, mentions 客服 / 工单 / 支持台, a support desk, help desk, customer service, support tickets, ticket triage, a knowledge base or canned macros, SLA / first-response time, CSAT, escalations, or refund requests, wants incoming tickets triaged into a needs_review → approved → done pipeline, agent-drafted replies grounded in a knowledge base and reviewed before sending, refunds and commitments gated behind human approval, or breaching-SLA tickets surfaced. This is the OPERATOR desk (agent + human), distinct from a visitor-facing chat bubble.

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。

Legal-contract review desk (Busabase App-in-Skill) for NDAs, MSAs, DPAs, and SOWs. Use when the user invokes $kelly-legal-contracts or /kelly-legal-contracts, mentions legal, 法务, contract review, 合同审阅, NDA, MSA, DPA, SOW, redlines, clause playbook, legal intake, issue list, or wants a Busabase-backed review desk where a human legal reviewer approves, revises, or blocks agent-prepared contract issues.

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。

Autonomous Reforge-guided refactor workflow for the Humans repository. Use when the user wants Codex to target a section such as Shifts, Users, Teams, Tickets, Camps, or Store, create a dedicated worktree/branch from origin/main, run iterative architecture-focused improvements, score each stage with Reforge, gate commits through a score-blind read-only architecture review, append score and verdict details to commit messages after review acceptance, push progress, and open a PR when the loop reaches stasis.

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。

Sanguo event review loop with LangGraph Studio visualization. Use for: 三國事件審核、generic event candidates、battle candidates、event review MCQ、accepted/rejected events、promote events、LangGraph Studio、human-in-the-loop、事件候選可視化、chunk -> extract -> validate -> review -> publish。

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。

仕事や暮らしの繰り返し作業を質問で掘り下げ、開始条件や人の確認、判断用の要約を整理して、実装担当が追加質問なしで作れるワークフロー仕様にするスキル。

• 任せられる繰り返し作業を見つけたいとき
• ワークフローの開始条件を整理したいとき
• 人による確認のタイミングを決めたいとき

機能追加や不具合修正などの開発を、規模に応じて調査・計画・テスト・レビューへ振り分けます。計画承認とコミット確認を組み込む、関連スキル共通の手順です。

• 機能追加と不具合修正の手順を揃えたいとき
• 変更規模に合わせて工程を選びたいとき
• 設計書からMVP開発を進めたいとき

大規模言語モデルの知識・推論・コード生成を共通の課題で評価するスキル。複数モデルの比較表や学習途中の成績推移を作り、評価結果と個別の回答を保存します。

• MMLU・GSM8Kでのモデル評価
• 複数モデルの比較表作成
• 学習途中のモデルの成績追跡

Configure human-in-the-loop gating for AI agent review actions in Claude Code. Use when setting up a project where an agent may post PR reviews, comments, merges, or edit CI configuration, and you want a cryptographically auditable approval trail with Cedar-enforced gates.

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 a specific inbound deal before close — when sales has asked for a discount that exceeds AE authority, when the customer has redlined the MSA, when per-deal economics (margin after discount, multi-year payment shape, indemnity exposure) need to be quantified, or when discount approval needs to be routed to a named human approver (Sales Director, VP Sales, CFO, CRO, General Counsel). Covers deal review, discount approval routing, per-deal margin scoring, deal exception handling, MSA redline triage, contract landmine detection (uncapped indemnity, MFN, perpetual license-back, missing DPA), and named-approver chain assembly. NEVER auto-approves — every output is a numeric scorecard plus a routing recommendation to a named human.

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。