「rev」の検索結果

Configure and troubleshoot Salesforce Billing revenue recognition rules, schedules, and GL transaction generation under ASC 606. Triggers: 'revenue schedule not generated after order activation', 'blng__RevenueSchedule__c missing', 'blng__RevenueRecognitionRule__c on a product', 'Finance Periods not set up', 'performance obligation allocation for bundled products', 'distribution method', 'ASC 606 in Salesforce Billing'. NOT for billing schedules, invoice plans and invoice runs - use admin/billing-schedule-setup. NOT for invoice-to-payment mismatches at month-end close - use data/billing-data-reconciliation.

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。

Extracts structured data from large sets of legal documents into tabular format for review, analysis, and reporting. Processes contracts, agreements, correspondence, filings, and other legal documents in bulk — extracting key terms, dates, parties, obligations, risks, and custom fields into organized tables. Use when conducting due diligence document review, bulk contract extraction, compliance audits across document sets, lease portfolio analysis, employment agreement review, regulatory filing review, or any task requiring structured extraction from multiple documents. Trigger keywords: tabular review, bulk extraction, document review table, data room review, batch document analysis, contract extraction, portfolio review, structured extraction, document comparison table.

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。

Multi-pass structural code review with adversarial analysis, scope-aware dispatch, adversarial persona passes, and forced-finding protocol. Supports input modes: branch diff (default), PR number (#123), commit hash, pending changes (--pending). Use when asked to "review this PR", "code review", "pre-landing review", "check my diff", or "review #123". Proactively suggest when the user is about to merge or land code changes. NOT for behavioral verification against a running build (see mk:evaluate); NOT for post-implementation simplification (see mk:simplify).

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 a GitHub PR with a single shallow correctness/security/breaking/AI-slop checklist and emits a verdict; optionally posts it via gh pr review. Use to review an external or teammate PR. NOT for deep pre-landing audit of your own diff (see mk:review); NOT for responding to received review comments (see mk:respond-pr).

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 local git changes before opening a PR or merging. First review all local tracked and untracked files; if none exist, review the current branch against a requested base branch or the Git Town parent branch. Use zero to three review subagents only when risk, diff size, language specificity, or uncertainty justifies the token cost, then report high-confidence bugs, regressions, risky assumptions, and missing tests. Use when the user asks for code review, local review, branch sanity check, pre-PR review, or review of work-in-progress changes.

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 asks for a multi-agent .NET code review - five parallel reviewers (correctness, performance, security/observability, data/messaging/integration, generalist) plus an adversarial maintainer that refutes weak findings. Requires the review agent roles registered by scripts/install-codex.sh. Keywords: dotnet review pipeline, multi-agent review, parallel reviewers, maintainer pushback, review this branch, cynical 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。

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".

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-reviewer. 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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. 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。

ISTQB/JSTQB のテストプロセス各工程の出口ゲートとして、工程成果物（test-plan.md / test-analysis.md / test-design.md / test-case.md / テスト実装 / test-execution-log.md / test-monitoring.md / test-summary-report.md）をレビューするスキル。決定論スクリプトの機械検査（トレーサビリティ ID 突合・テンプレ準拠）と test-reviewer サブエージェントの定性レビューを行い、利用者が通過/条件付き通過/差し戻しを判定して軽量記録 test-review-<工程>.md を残す。上流の仕様・基本設計（spec / design-doc 工程。docs/dev/<対象>/spec.md・basic-design.md）は機械検査と利用者判定のみの軽量ゲートとして扱う。各工程スキル（test-plan〜test-report / feature-spec / basic-design）が完了宣言の前に本スキルの実行を促す。ソースコード diff のレビュー（diff-review）とは別物で、対象はテストプロセスの成果物のみ。成果物の修正・代作はしない。/test-review <テスト対象名> [工程] で明示的に呼び出されたときのみ使用する。

Review a GitHub pull request from multiple perspectives in parallel, output only findings, then let the user pick which to fix in the same session. Use when the user asks to review a PR by number, mentions "PRレビュー" / "PR review" with a number, or invokes `/pr-review <number>`. Fans out subagents for absolute-rules, stop-slop, security, architecture, code-quality, testing, and ai-antipattern.

BROWSER REVIEW QA SKILL — Use the built-in browser/headless browser (puppeteer-core) to open a browser-runnable Cocos preview, switch preview targets, capture screenshots, and compare them with reference images. USE FOR: screen-driven QA only when the user has already prepared a Browser Review environment that can run in the browser (`http://localhost:7456`, LoadingScene/preview host/preview target wiring ready). DO NOT USE FOR: current Cocos Editor window screenshots, Editor Preview capture, compile errors, or pure log analysis. If the Browser Review environment is not ready, stop and remind the user to prepare it first.

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 database schema design and detect anti-patterns. Based on common RDB design knowledge and best practices. Supports Prisma, Drizzle, Rails, Django, Laravel, TypeORM, Sequelize, SQLAlchemy, and raw SQL (DDL). Use when the user says "review DB design", "check schema", "review table design", "review migration", "check for anti-patterns", "DB設計をレビューして", "スキーマを見て", "テーブル設計を確認して", "マイグレーションをレビューして", "アンチパターンがないか調べて", "この設計で問題ないか見て".

make review / make review-close があるプロジェクトで、Codex の PR レビューと修正を最大5周回す。「レビューループ」「review-loop」「make review で回して」で発火。各レビューを対象 commit と対応付け、根拠を確認して修正し、完了後にクローズする。

codex exec review を基本に、必要なら codex exec を使ってコード変更のレビューを依頼し、指摘事項を報告する。通常 / 厳しめ (--strict) / 敵対的 (--adversarial、実装を壊しにいく red team) の 3 モードを持つ。「codexでレビューして」「codex-review」「/codex-review」「敵対的にレビューして」で発火。Codex 単体での単独レビュー用途。複数エージェント並行レビューは cross-review、差分ではなくコードベース全体の監査は audit を使う。

指定したコミットやブランチなどを基準にコードの変更を確認し、開発規約への適合と仕様の実現を別々にレビューします。二つの観点の指摘を分けて報告するスキルです。

• ブランチやPRの変更レビュー
• 指定コミットやタグ以降の確認
• 文書化された開発規約との照合

Automated Cherry Studio review for local branches, PRs, commits, files, architecture docs, and repository skills. Use for code or documentation reviews that need project-specific naming, main/renderer/shared placement and dependency rules, IpcApi and DataApi boundaries, lifecycle/service ownership, renderer hooks, React/UI conventions, and tests. Review depth adapts to diff size and runtime subagent capability (single-agent or multi-agent reviewer-verifier). Report-only by default; code fixes and GitHub submission each require explicit invocation-time authorization (`fix` / `submit`). Normal-review prompts and safe interruption behavior follow the interaction contract below. To diagnose gaps in the skill after a review session, run `/gh-pr-review diag`.

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。

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 8 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, three-way literature scan, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, WHY HOW WHAT papers, 3W literature scan, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 三段式文獻掃描, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題, 심층 연구, 문헌 조사, 체계적 문헌고찰, 메타분석, 사실 확인, 연구 방향을 잡아줘, 연구 주제 정하는 것을 도와줘, revisión de literatura, metaanálisis

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。

Draft performance reviews, self-assessments, peer reviews, and upward feedback in your own voice. Analyzes your contributions, emails, and meeting history via WorkIQ, then produces honest, impact-focused drafts using the STAR format. USE FOR: write my performance review, draft self-assessment, peer review, 360 feedback, annual review, mid-year review, upward feedback, write review for colleague, performance appraisal.

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 GitHub pull request by summarizing its diff and key design decisions. Use when the user wants to review a PR, understand changes in a branch, or get a code review summary. Trigger keywords - review PR, review pull request, summarize PR, summarize diff, code review, review branch, PR summary, diff summary.

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。

Findings-driven targeted code review. Understands the patch via patch-explainer and surrounding code via codebase-analysis, then consults a catalog of bug patterns (~11 categories under references/categories/). Picks only categories whose diff-signals match the patch and items whose "look for" hints match actual code shapes, groups them by review focus (function/file/feature), and spawns parallel subagents — each with a tight scope and selective checklist. Use for medium-to-large patches (50-1000 LOC) as a focused alternative to whole-patch ensemble or whole-file deep review. Triggers on: "review this patch/diff/change", "find bugs in this change", "scoped review", "what could go wrong here", "review using findings", or proactive PR 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。

Tabular review — one row per document, one column per data point, every cell cited to source. Built for M&A diligence ("review these 200 target contracts for change-of-control, assignment, and MAC clauses") but works for any batch review that needs a spreadsheet out the other end. Use when user says "tabular review", "review grid", "build a grid", "extract these fields from these contracts", "review these documents for X, Y, Z", "give me a spreadsheet of", "batch review", or points at a folder of documents and asks to compare them.

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 vendor agreement, NDA, or SaaS subscription against your playbook. Identifies the agreement structure from titles, routes to the right review skill (vendor-agreement-review, nda-review, saas-msa-review), and integrates the output into a single memo. Use when the user says "review this contract", "check this MSA", "is this NDA okay", "look at this SaaS agreement", or attaches an inbound agreement for 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。