「independent review」の検索結果

Use when breaking a large, complex, messy, or hard-to-review pull request into multiple smaller PRs; planning stacked PRs; extracting independent changes from a branch; splitting mixed refactor and behavior changes; managing drift after review feedback; rebasing follow-up PRs as earlier PRs change; or preserving original branch intent while shipping incrementally.

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。

Drive an open PR through current CI, independent Polly and OCR reviews, preview, and maintainer handoff.

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 candidate fixes for verified security findings. Consumes TRIAGE.json (preferred), VULN-FINDINGS.json, INCIDENTS.json, or a vuln-pipeline results directory. Pipeline input is delegated to the execution-verified `vuln-pipeline patch` ladder; static-analysis input gets a per-finding patch subagent + independent reviewer and is written as inert diffs for human review. Writes PATCHES/bug_NN/{patch.diff,patch_result.json}, PATCHES.md, and PATCHES.json. Use when asked to "fix the findings", "patch these vulns", "generate fixes", or "close the loop on triage".

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。

[omh] Technical proposal facing adversarial scrutiny: independent perspectives attack a proposal, then distill into a bundle a separate planner consumes. Use when the user says: adversarial-consensus, adversarial planning, adversarial plan review, red team this plan, red-team this plan, red team the proposal, multi-perspective review, multiple perspectives.

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。

Harden a plan with independent Claude/Codex review, then optionally build and cross-inspect it. Start in either Claude Code or Codex: the host plans and the other provider reviews. Use for claudex this plan, claudex-loop, or the legacy crucible trigger; not for trivial edits.

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 executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session or facing 3+ independent issues that can be investigated without shared state or dependencies - dispatches fresh subagent for each task with code review between tasks, enabling fast iteration with quality 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。

Run an external frontier-model referee (Claude Code -> a different vendor's frontier model via the Oracle CLI) on a paper, proof, estimator, or replication package -- and adjudicate what comes back. Use when the user says "send this to oracle", "get an external review", "run a referee round", "deep-check this proof", or before a submission when an independent second opinion is worth more than another in-house pass. Never launches bare: brief first, evidence-forcing prompt, coverage manifest, then CONFIRMED/REFUTED/DOWNGRADED triage.

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。

Operates GitHub via gh CLI and REST/GraphQL — PRs, issues, Actions, repos, collaborators, org permissions, 2FA — with explicit target, authorization, and independent readback. Use when a write reports success but state didn't change, or choosing gh/REST/GraphQL/UI-only. Not for local Git recovery (use git-safety-net), maintainer PR review (use github-review-pr), or upstream contribution (use github-contributor).

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 requesting independent code review, after implementation slices, before merging high-risk work, or when verification exposes evidence, baseline, architecture, compatibility, or retirement uncertainty.

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。

Independently review the exact result and run its real checks in one context, using isolated resources and without changing the deliverable.

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。

Break a work-items.md file (produced by /plan-work-items) into independently-grabbable GitHub issues, one per slice, in each slice's target repo. Use when you want to turn a work-items file into GitHub issues, publish work items as issue tickets, or create implementation tickets that can be worked on and tracked on GitHub. Does not produce the work-items file itself — use plan-work-items to break a plan into work items first. Does not review code or post pull request comments — use post-code-review-to-pr 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。

Perform the repository's risk-tiered independent final review before implementation completion. Use only when explicitly invoked or when repository instructions require it after behavior-impacting implementation work; audit the complete task diff, supported contracts, lifecycle and security boundaries, complexity, and tests before final verification.

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。

When handing work to the Codex CLI earns its cost, and how to size the run: second-model review, bounded implementation hand-offs, sandbox permissions, model and reasoning effort. Use when the user asks for Codex or `codex exec`, when a change is complex or high-stakes enough that an independent reviewer would change the outcome, or when a delegated run needs its model, effort, or permissions chosen. For agents other than Codex itself.

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 task may benefit from a bounded subagent for implementation, large-codebase discovery at task start, independent review, requested or pre-commit code simplification, or expert work on complex decisions, modeling, automation, or repeated failures. The main agent chooses whether to delegate and accepts the result. Do not use for simple questions or short work with no meaningful review or delegation.

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。

Provider-independent provenance, rights, consent, disclosure, and release governance for AI-generated media. Use when producing or reviewing generated images, video, audio, ads, avatars, product content, social clips, documentaries, localization, music, sound, or campaign assets that need source-rights checks, model/provider term checks, likeness or voice consent, trademark/logo review, copyrighted-character/style risk triage, music licensing, C2PA/content credentials, provenance ledgers, release notes, platform disclosures, jurisdiction/client caveats, or rights QA.

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。

Provider-independent localization and dubbing production direction for AI agents producing translated videos, dubbed ads, social clips, explainers, avatar videos, documentaries, training media, and multi-market campaigns. Use when planning or reviewing subtitle-versus-dub strategy, translation adaptation, glossary/style-guide setup, casting or voice matching, lip-sync or phrase-sync direction, synthetic dubbing boundaries, captions/subtitles handoff, accessibility, platform delivery, client review, or localization QA.

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。

Provider-independent governance workflow for verifying and correcting human- or model-generated video descriptions. Use for pre-caption critique and post-caption revision, aspect-by-aspect factual review, critique precision/recall/constructiveness, second-stage peer review, calibration, appeals, versioned triplets, provenance, and acceptance reporting; not for pixel/audio QA, accessibility captioning, model training, or creative shot direction.

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。

Full enhancement pipeline for an existing Lattice skill — rewrites a molecule or atom to modern-capable-model grade: restores degraded grammar, deduplicates, hardens gates and branching to one-unambiguous-action precision, verifies zero behavioral loss against a pre-capture diff, then runs the combined QA gate (skill-review, skill-tighten, skill-validate) and an independent fresh-context verifier, fixing everything found. Consumer-first: optimized for first-time open-source users on fresh repos with minimal .lattice/ setup, running capable models. Use when the user says 'enhance this skill', 'upgrade this molecule', 'modernize this skill', 'optimize this skill', 'make this skill production grade', 'full enhancement', 'polish this molecule like design-blueprint', or names a molecule/atom to overhaul. For gap-finding only use skill-review; for conventions only use skill-validate — this skill runs the whole loop end to end.

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。

Adversarially review the current implementation plan with three independent critic subagents, reconcile their findings into a consensus, and apply the agreed feedback to the plan. Use after drafting a plan (in plan mode or a plan/design doc) and before starting implementation, or whenever the user asks to pressure-test, critique, or harden a plan.

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。

Challenges a recommendation, design, large change, or any artifact submitted for hard review (spec, proposal, policy, plan) across 5 dimensions (consistency, completeness, actionability, alignment, risk), from the standards of a named senior expert in the artifact's domain and ideally from a fresh context or a different model. Searches assuming defects exist and reports only those that survive evidence. Panel mode runs several independent lenses in parallel on a release candidate, verifies every finding against the current head, and routes confirmed ones to file owners. Use before shipping a significant recommendation, design, large branch, or multi-agent release, or when asked to tear something apart, be brutally honest, or poke holes in it.

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。

Delegate coding, code review, analysis, and research jobs to Google Antigravity CLI (agy) sub-agents that run alongside your own work. Use this whenever the user asks to spin off, offload, or delegate a task to Antigravity, agy, Gemini, or an "external agent"; wants a second opinion or independent review from a different model; wants intensive repo work (audits, large refactors, research sweeps) run in the background while you keep working; or says things like "have Antigravity do it", "spin up a sub-agent for this", or "get more done in parallel". Also use it proactively when a task is a good fit for parallel delegation and the user has expressed a preference for using Antigravity 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。

Suede Thought Graph shipping search for a multi-file repo change. Use when competing implementation plans need one evidence-gated selection before any build. Halts on hazards, collisions, budget exhaustion, or no safe winner. Reads production; never deploys. NOT FOR: bulk independent work (use a separate private worker-fleet pass); findings-only diff review (use suede-code-review); CI or branch-protection wiring (use suede-ci-gate); copy-only shipping (use suede-ship-copy).

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。

Executes an approved implementation plan through fresh implementer and reviewer agents for each task, with explicit handoffs, focused tests, and task-by-task integration. Use for multi-task work where independent agent context improves implementation and review quality. Not for a single small edit, an unresolved design, or a failure that still needs root-cause 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。

Review a code change for correctness-maintainability defects not owned by a narrower security/performance/accessibility perspective. Use for an independent quality perspective on a defined change set.

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。