1.6万 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Structured literature search + synthesis with citation extraction, thematic clustering, and gap identification. Use when user says "find papers on X", "do a lit review", "what's the literature on...", "summarize what we know about...", "where's the gap in this field", "review recent work on Y". Produces a written review with BibTeX-ready citations. Uses WebSearch/WebFetch for recent work.
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。
AI DevKit · Review code, skills, and prompts for security vulnerabilities — OWASP Top 10, prompt injection, business logic flaws, and insecure defaults. Use when reviewing PRs, auditing modules, reviewing AI skills/prompts, or preparing for release.
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。
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow execution, poor readability. Triggers when: user asks about test quality, shares test files for review, or expresses frustration: "tests keep breaking whenever I change anything", "our tests take forever", "tests pass but bugs still reach production", or "we have too many mocks". Do NOT trigger for: writing new tests from scratch (use the regular test-writing workflow) or testing framework/syntax questions — this skill reviews an existing suite for structural quality problems, not individual test authoring.
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。
Confirm a change before merge. `/check verify` drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). `/check review` runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never edits code.
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。
Ships pull requests to open-source projects you don't maintain — CONTRIBUTING compliance, PR-size/scope checks, minimal-diff implementation, AI-disclosure PR descriptions, and rebase or bot-review replies. Use for 提 PR / 上游 PR / 贡献代码, "open a PR", "fix this upstream", "rebase against main", "respond to the bot review". Not for reviewing PRs as maintainer (use github-review-pr) or general GitHub CRUD (use github-ops).
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 and summarise any contract or legal agreement. Use when asked to review a contract, check an agreement, flag legal risks, or summarise key clauses. Produces a structured review with key terms, flagged clauses, risk rating, and plain English summary. Not a substitute for qualified legal advice.
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。
Prepare for and run a product requirements review (需求评审 / PRD 评审会) the way Chinese internet teams do it: a pre-read the engineers, testers and designers can challenge, the questions each role will ask, the meeting run sheet and a written conclusion (通过 / 有条件通过 / 不通过). Use when asked 帮我准备需求评审, PRD 评审会怎么开, 评审前检查一下我的 PRD, 研发会问什么问题, or prepare my requirements review in Chinese. Produces a readiness check of the PRD, a role-by-role question bank with answer points, a 60-minute run sheet, and the review minutes template with the conclusion and follow-ups.
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 bill of materials for cost, risk, and supply exposure — cost rollup, top-10 cost drivers, single-source and EOL risk, MOQ vs forecast mismatch, cost-down candidates, and tariff/logistics sensitivity. Use when asked to review a BOM, find cost-down opportunities, check component sourcing risk, or sanity-check BOM cost against target. Produces a structured BOM review with a cost driver Pareto, risk flags per line, and a prioritised cost-down 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。
Review an LLM agent design and find where it will be unreliable, expensive, or unsafe. Use when asked to review an agent architecture, critique a multi-step/tool-using agent, debug an agent that loops or goes off-task, or harden an agent before launch. Produces a structured review — task fit, control flow, tools, memory/context, failure handling, cost, and safety — with prioritised findings and fixes.
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 KiCad projects and PDF schematics: schematics, PCB layouts, Gerbers, footprints, symbols, netlists, and design rules. Reviews designs for bugs, traces nets, cross-references schematic to PCB, extracts BOM data, checks DRC/ERC, DFM, power trees, and regulator circuits. Every finding carries a confidence label and evidence source with trust_summary rollup. Analyzes PDF schematics from dev boards, reference designs, eval kits, and datasheets. Supports KiCad 5–10. Use whenever the user mentions .kicad_sch, .kicad_pcb, .kicad_pro, PCB design review, schematic analysis, PDF schematics, reference designs, Gerber files, DRC/ERC, netlist issues, BOM extraction, signal tracing, power budget, DFM, or wants to understand, debug, compare, or review any hardware design. Also for "check my board", "review before fab", "what's wrong with my schematic", "is this ready to order", "check my power supply", "verify this circuit", OSHWA certification readiness, or any electronics/PCB design question.
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。
Open image shots (screenshots, snapshot baselines, montages, renders) in ONE macOS Preview window so the user can eyeball them. Use when the user asks to open / show / pull up / review shots in Preview or Finder, or right after producing visual artifacts the user should look at before signing 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。
Code review for PRs or staged changes. >80% confidence threshold. Verdict: APPROVE, REQUEST CHANGES, or COMMENT. Triggers: review, pr, 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。
Analyze KiCad projects and PDF schematics: schematics, PCB layouts, Gerbers, footprints, symbols, netlists, and design rules. Reviews designs for bugs, traces nets, cross-references schematic to PCB, extracts BOM data, checks DRC/ERC, DFM, power trees, and regulator circuits. Every finding carries a confidence label and evidence source with trust_summary rollup. Analyzes PDF schematics from dev boards, reference designs, eval kits, and datasheets. Supports KiCad 5–10. Use whenever the user mentions .kicad_sch, .kicad_pcb, .kicad_pro, PCB design review, schematic analysis, PDF schematics, reference designs, Gerber files, DRC/ERC, netlist issues, BOM extraction, signal tracing, power budget, DFM, or wants to understand, debug, compare, or review any hardware design. Also for "check my board", "review before fab", "what's wrong with my schematic", "is this ready to order", "check my power supply", "verify this circuit", OSHWA certification readiness, or any electronics/PCB design question.
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 DataFusion Comet pull request. Covers the workflow that applies to every PR and routes to the area-specific review skills for expressions, FFI, memory management, shuffle, and Iceberg writes. Provides guidance to a human reviewer rather than posting comments.
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 DataFusion Comet pull request that adds or changes a Spark expression, its Scala serde, its protobuf message, or its native Rust implementation. Load alongside review-comet-pr, which covers the parts of the review that apply to every 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。
Produce and continuously maintain ONE living review document for a multi-item session — a cockpit header (Progress checklist, Working folder, Context) plus per-item review cards that you approve or request changes on directly in the doc or side panel. Use whenever a session has multiple deliverables you need to review/approve (meeting-processing + planning, multi-ticket work, briefs with several drafts, any "do X, then plan/draft Y and Z"). The doc is the interaction surface: you edit it (or reply in chat) to approve/change; the agent keeps it live as work progresses.
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 generated or changed documentation before it ships — READMEs, API references, docstrings, PHPDoc/JSDoc, changelogs, tutorials, and doc sites. Best used reactively after an agent writes or edits docs, after code changes documented behavior, or before publishing docs. Use when the user says 'review the docs', 'is this documentation accurate', 'update the docs', 'write a README', 'document this API', 'add a docstring', or 'add a changelog entry'. Core job: verify every referenced function, flag, endpoint, config key, and code sample against the source; catch docs-vs-code drift; strip filler and unverifiable claims. DO NOT USE for production code review (use clean-code-guard), test review (use test-guard), marketing copy or blog posts, prose style editing of non-technical writing, or documentation site theming.
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 writing the response to an American Anthropologist (AA) revise-and-resubmit. AA uses anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, often with cross-subfield reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident and the ethnographic contribution intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new evidence.
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 drafting AISTATS author responses or author-reviewer discussion replies under OpenReview, covering text-only discussion, no-link guidance, no revised-paper upload, anonymity requirements, statistician-reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused clarification strategy for theory-plus-experiments papers.
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 writing the response to an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) revise-and-resubmit. AERJ R&Rs come back through the handling editor and multiple masked reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident the revision is convergent. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new 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。
Use when targeting the Annual Review of Environment and Resources or deciding whether an environment-and-resources synthesis fits this invited-review venue. Encodes the journal's invited-review fit, the authoritative-synthesis bar, structure expectations, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
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 targeting Annual Review of Plant Biology or deciding whether a plant-biology review proposal fits this invited-review venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the authoritative-synthesis and invited-article bar, evidence and balance expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
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 working with the Associate Editor and Editor of an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — scope alignment after a proposal is invited, what review-article referees evaluate, and revision expectations. Plans the interaction; it does not run the portal preflight (amann-submission) or draft the response letter (amann-revision).
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 explaining or planning around AAAI's two-phase review process, Phase 1 rejection risk, Phase 2 additional reviews, AI-assisted review pilot, author feedback, SPC/AC discussion, and final decisions.
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。