「review」の検索結果

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

Dual-layer PR review tool (Raven's Verdict). Runs adversarial cynical review and edge case hunter in parallel, merges and deduplicates findings into professional engineering output. Use when user asks to 'review a PR' and provides a PR url or id.

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。

Google TypeScript Style Guide reference for writing, reviewing, and refactoring TypeScript code. Use this skill whenever you are writing TypeScript code, reviewing TypeScript code, refactoring TypeScript, configuring ESLint or linter rules for TypeScript, or when the user asks about TypeScript coding conventions, naming conventions, type system best practices, or import/export patterns. Also trigger when the user mentions 'Google style', 'gts', 'TypeScript style guide', or asks 'how should I name this', 'should I use interface or type', 'how to handle null/undefined' in a TypeScript context. TypeScriptを書く・レビューする・リファクタリングする、ESLintの設定をする、「命名規則」「型の使い方」「import/exportのルール」「interfaceとtypeどっち」「anyを使っていい？」「nullチェックどうする」「Google式」「コーディング規約」「スタイルガイド」などの質問にも対応します。TypeScriptのコードに関する質問や作業であれば積極的にこのスキルを使ってください。

Applies standard AI review policy guidelines for upstream (design) phase reviews.

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 whether the PR description is review-ready and consistent with the diff (Why/What, impact, tests, linked 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。

Applies standard AI review policy guidelines for midstream (implementation) phase reviews.

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。

Applies standard AI review policy guidelines for downstream (test/QA) phase reviews.

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。

River Review のメインエントリポイント。 レビュー依頼の intent classification → 専門 skill 選択 → 実行 → finding verification → feedback classification → fixture / reference / suppression への還元までを束ねる improvement-loop orchestrator。

セキュリティ観点の通常レビューエージェント。 基本的なセキュリティチェック、認証・認可設計、プライバシー設計の個別スキルへルーティングする。 repository / subsystem の明示的な security audit は river-review-security-audit へ委譲する。

Reviews mobile code for production bugs across Flutter, native Android, native iOS, React Native and Kotlin Multiplatform, including KMP source-set and host API contracts. Covers lifecycle, concurrency, UI state and native boundaries with file:line evidence. Use for a code review, PR, project audit, quality check or /reis-mobile: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。

Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.

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 comprehensive review full 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。

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory, coverage-bounded integrity checks, two-stage peer review, and auditable quality-assurance artifacts. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow, 연구부터 논문까지, 연구 주제 설정부터 논문 완성까지, 논문 전체 워크플로.

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。

Dispatch code-reviewer subagent to review implementation against plan or requirements before proceeding

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。

Professional code review with auto CHANGELOG generation, integrated with Codex AI. Use when you want professional code review before commits, you need automatic CHANGELOG generation, or reviewing large-scale refactoring.

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。

Orchestrator for the full academic research pipeline: research -> write -> integrity check -> review -> revise -> re-review -> re-revise -> final integrity check -> finalize. Coordinates deep-research, academic-paper, and academic-paper-reviewer into a seamless 10-stage workflow with mandatory integrity verification, two-stage peer review, and reproducible quality gates. Triggers on: academic pipeline, research to paper, full paper workflow, paper pipeline, end-to-end paper, research-to-publication, complete paper workflow.

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。

コード品質の最終確認。Skill: code-review (built-in) で correctness bug を検出 → main agent が findings を修正 → lint/ty 静的解析 → 条件付きで security-reviewer / critic を spawn (security 関連変更 or plan/requirements.md がある時のみ)。「品質チェックして」「品質ゲート通して」「レビューして」「コードを確認して」「PR 出す前にチェック」「セキュリティ大丈夫？」「コード見て」で発動。

Structured 3-phase peer review of a diff or PR — intent, issues by severity, then pointed merge-readiness questions and a verdict. Use for general code review. Not for AI workflow self-fix-and-edit (ai-systems-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate threat models (adversarial-challenge). Phase 3 asks questions only; it is not the adversarial-challenge skill.

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。