「view」の検索結果

Applies fixes from a prior review-llm-artifacts run, with safe/risky classification. Respects verify-llm-artifacts output when present to skip false positives.

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。

Avoid common mistakes and debug issues in PydanticAI agents. Use when encountering errors, unexpected behavior, or when reviewing agent implementations.

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。

Optimize prompts for code-related tasks following prompt-engineering best practices. Use when refining prompts for implementation, debugging, refactoring, code review, or testing.

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。

Core technical documentation writing principles for voice, tone, structure, and LLM-friendly patterns. Use when writing or reviewing any documentation.

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。

Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts in codebases. Identifies test quality issues, dead code, over-abstraction, and verbose LLM style patterns. Use when cleaning up AI-generated code or reviewing for agent-introduced cruft.

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。

Respond to review comments on a PR after evaluation 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。

Use when you have a finalized brainstorm-beagle spec at `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/spec.md` and need a bite-sized, TDD-driven implementation plan before any code is written. Triggers on: "write a plan", "plan this spec", "turn the spec into a plan", "now plan the implementation", "write-plan". Reads the spec, designs the file structure, decomposes work into 2-5 minute TDD steps with exact paths and commands, self-reviews against the spec, gets user approval, then writes to `.beagle/concepts/<slug>/plan.md` and offers to generate an execution handoff prompt via the subagent-prompt skill. Does NOT brainstorm specs, write code, or execute the plan — produces the plan document (and an optional handoff prompt) only.

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 auditing an agent codebase against the 12-Factor Agents methodology, reviewing LLM-powered system architecture, or assessing agentic app compliance. Triggers on "analyze agent architecture", "12-factor audit", "how compliant is this agent", or "evaluate this LLM app". Also applies when comparing frameworks or planning agent improvements. Not for quick checklists — this performs deep per-factor codebase analysis with file-level 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 the user wants a cited, structured read of local documents and project knowledge. Triggers on: "analyze these docs", "scan my project for context", "read the docs folder", "summarize what's in .beagle/concepts/", "extract context from docs/", "what's in this folder", "go read everything in X and tell me what's there". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), web research (use web-research), LLM-as-judge evaluation (use llm-judge), or document editing (use humanize-beagle). Produces a written scan plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

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 wants web research: gathering cited, multi-angle evidence on a specific question. Triggers on: "research X for me", "do web research on", "look up sources for", "find citations for", "gather evidence on", "what does the web say about X". Also invoked programmatically by other beagle skills (prfaq-beagle Ignition, brainstorm-beagle reference points, strategy-interview context grounding) via the companion contract. Does NOT trigger on codebase lookups ("find this function", "search the repo"), local file search, LLM-as-judge evaluation, or paywalled/auth-gated scraping. Produces a written plan, parallel-subagent findings, and a cited synthesis report on disk — never inline prose, never unsourced claims.

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。

Fetch unresolved review comments from a PR and evaluate with receive-feedback 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。

A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design, which also creates docs (ADR's and glossary) as we go.

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, confirm, and synchronize research status, evidence, blockers, and review-ready GitHub summaries using the Research Memory skill, GitHub conventions, and file templates.

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 Pierre Computer Company's `@pierre/trees` (path-first file tree) and `@pierre/diffs` (shiki-based code/diff renderer) in Kolu. Pierre ships Preact/vanilla cores with optional React wrappers — Kolu consumes the vanilla classes and wraps them in thin SolidJS components. Trigger when: wiring up a file tree, rendering unified diffs or syntax-highlighted files, replacing `@git-diff-view`, or any mention of `@pierre/trees` / `@pierre/diffs` / "pierre library".

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。

Make AI coding-agent messages to humans clear and easy to follow. Use for every user-facing update, explanation, review, question, and handoff in this repository, or when the user asks to simplify or rewrite an agent message.

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。

Bump a Gradle or Rust dependency version. Use when editing libs.versions.toml, native/rust/Cargo.toml, or reviewing a Renovate PR. Not for adding a module or plugin (gradle-build-system, convention-plugin-development).

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。

Conservative review of end-user legal exposure from diagnostics targets and probe hosts, by jurisdiction. Use when shipping or editing diagnostics target lists, probe hosts, or bootstrap endpoints.

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。

Network-engineering audit playbook for the RIPDPI Android app: VpnService, TUN-to-SOCKS, Rust data plane, DNS, TLS/QUIC strategy, relays, and diagnostics. Use for RIPDPI app network reviews or protocol/VPN architecture audits.

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。

RIPDPI's own Compose conventions: ViewModel pattern, Route/Screen split, DataStore->StateFlow, RipDpiThemeTokens. Use for how this app does Compose, not generic Compose API questions (see compose).

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。

Router for the ./taskctl portfolio-task lifecycle. Use when creating, updating, triaging, executing, reviewing, or closing RIPDPI tasks, backlog items, bugs, epics, or OpenSpec-backed 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。

Delegate tasks to AI agents via Box0. Use when the user asks to review code, check security, run tests, compare tools, get multiple perspectives, research a topic, analyze data, write docs, or any task that could benefit from specialized or parallel execution. Also use when the user mentions agent names or says "ask", "delegate", "get opinions from", or "have someone".

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。

Read, study, and answer questions about long books and papers without loading the whole text into one context window, keeping page-anchored notes as a reusable workspace. Use whenever the user asks to read, study, summarize, analyze, review, or answer questions about a long book, textbook, PDF, EPUB, thesis, dissertation, survey paper, or any document of roughly 50+ pages, in any language (Vietnamese "đọc sách", "tóm tắt sách", "phân tích luận án"). Also use when a `{slug}-notes/` workspace from a previous session sits next to a source file and the user asks a follow-up question about that book. Not for short documents (under ~30 pages) that fit in context; read those directly.

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。

Act as an end-to-end data scientist: turn business questions into defensible analysis, validated models, and decision-ready reports. Use whenever the user asks to analyze, explore, or profile a dataset or CSV/Parquet/Excel file; asks what drives a metric or why a number changed ("why did churn go up?"); wants to test whether a difference is real (A/B tests, experiments, "is this significant?", "how many samples do I need?"); wants a predictive model (churn, forecast, scoring, segmentation, classification, regression); asks to review an existing analysis, notebook, or model for flaws; or needs results written up for decision-makers. Triggers in any language ("phân tích dữ liệu", "xây model dự đoán", "kiểm định A/B"), even when they never say "data science" or "statistics".

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。

Audit the reasoning of a document or argument (memo, proposal, investment analysis, board paper, article, the user's own draft): claims, evidence, unstated assumptions, logical gaps, fallacies, and what would falsify it, each anchored to quoted text. Use whenever the user wants reasoning examined, in any language ("audit this argument", "is this analysis sound", "poke holes in this proposal", "review the logic of my draft"; Vietnamese "phản biện giúp tôi", "soi lập luận này", "tài liệu này có lỗ hổng gì", "góp ý bản nháp của tôi"), even when they never say "critical thinking". Also use when the user drops a document and asks whether to trust or act on it, or asks to see their reasoning profile. Not for company-level strategic bets (strategy-board) or learning a topic through dialogue (socratic-questor).

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。