「rev」の検索結果

Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini on Google Ads strategy, SEO best practices, or implementation questions). Use when the user says "gemini review", "ask gemini", "gemini challenge", "second opinion from gemini", "consult gemini", "stress test with gemini", "what would gemini say", "cross-model review", or "get another opinion". Voice aliases: "gem", "gemini check". Especially useful for Google Ads changes, SEO metadata updates, campaign structure decisions, keyword strategies, and bid/budget changes — Gemini has native Google ecosystem knowledge that complements Claude's 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。

Extract and analyze writing improvements from GitHub PR review comments. Use when asked to show review feedback, style changes, or editorial improvements from a GitHub pull request URL. Handles both explicit suggestions and plain text feedback. Produces structured output comparing original phrasing with reviewer suggestions to help refine future writing.

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。

Deterministic debugging with rr record-replay. Use when debugging crashes, ASAN faults, or when reverse execution is needed. Provides reverse-next, reverse-step, reverse-continue commands and crash trace extraction.

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 how the lean-ctx ctx_* MCP tools performed in the current session and file upstream issues for confirmed problems. Use when the user asks to review/audit lean-ctx tool performance, says "lean-ctx review", asks why ctx_* tools failed or fell back to native tools, or wants to report a lean-ctx bug.

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 PipesHub pull request or diff for correctness, scalability, null safety, reuse, design and tests. Use when asked to review a PR, a branch, a commit or the current diff, and when CI runs the automated 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。

Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed 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。

Domain routing and boundary guidance for authorized reverse engineering analysis, including decompilation, debugging, protocol reversing, firmware extraction, and deobfuscation. Use when a task belongs to the reverse engineering domain and needs scope, evidence, pivot, or exit criteria.

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-feedback handling route for CodeRabbit, GitHub, PR, or human reviewer comments. Use before implementing suggestions to verify each finding. Do not use for a fresh code review, security audit, TDD, or final completion 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。

Default code-quality route for broad code review, PR review, maintainability, correctness, and regression-risk checks. Do not use as the primary route for dedicated OWASP/security audits, review-feedback handling, completion verification, AI-code cleanup, or TDD/test-first 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。

Auto-fix issues found by code review in REVIEW.md. Spawns fixer agent, commits each fix atomically, produces REVIEW-FIX.md 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。

[omh] Missed route or run lessons to record: classify and review self-improvement store routes as an auxiliary review lane before durable writes, then record workflow attempts as metadata-only traces, evals, review queues, patch proposals, regression cases, audits, indexes, and exports. Use when the user says: workflow-learning, workflow learning, route-signal, self-improvement store routing, store route review, memory skill wiki routing, learning trace, learning audit.

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] Context window or token budget at risk: plan compact context, token/cost budgets, summarization checkpoints, and overflow recovery before long agent work. Use when the user says: context-budget-review, context budget review, context budget, token budget review, token budget, prompt budget, prompt caching, prompt cache.

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] Pull request or changes to vet: bug-first review with evidence. Use when the user says: code-review, review, audit, find bugs, release gate, claim audit, evidence audit, README claim.

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] Previously rejected options to revisit: recall scoped reviewed rejected decisions without elevating them to approved memory. Use when the user says: decision-recall, rejected decision recall, rejected decisions, why was this rejected, previously rejected alternative, 거절된 결정, 기각된 대안.

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] AI agent progress for managers: help managers inspect AI-agent progress, blockers, quality gates, and throughput levers. Use when the user says: agent-ops-review, agent ops review, agent productivity, operator productivity, manager view, quality dashboard, throughput review, agent work quality.

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。

Build a pre-earnings briefing for a stock from Yahoo Finance data (yfinance): the upcoming report date and timing, consensus EPS and revenue estimates with their range, the beat/miss track record, analyst ratings and price targets, and what to watch in the print. Use this skill whenever the user is preparing for an upcoming earnings report or asks what the street expects — consensus or whisper numbers, EPS expectations, whether a company will beat, an earnings setup, or an earnings-season preview — and whenever a ticker comes up in the context of upcoming earnings, even without the word "preview". For results that are already out, use earnings-recap.

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 sell-side analyst estimates and how they are changing, using Yahoo Finance data (yfinance): EPS and revenue consensus by period, estimate ranges and dispersion, revision trends over 7/30/60/90 days and up/down revision breadth, growth estimates vs industry, sector, and the S&P 500, and historical estimate accuracy. Use this skill when the user wants more than a single estimate lookup: estimate revisions or momentum, EPS trend, consensus changes, forward or next-quarter and annual estimates, the bull vs bear estimate spread, or growth projections across periods.

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。

Stops defensive writing across the entire paper lifecycle — writing, revising, cutting, and organizing experiments. Treats the paper as a press conference, not a project summary, lab log, or self-audit: identify the single most publishable strength of the work and build the most favorable, complete, and persuasive narrative around it. Never present everything evenly, never volunteer weakness, never write an experiment diary, never attack the paper on the reviewer's behalf. Triggers: polish my paper, revise manuscript, write abstract, write introduction, write conclusion, shorten paper, rebuttal, respond to reviewers, organize experiments, defensive writing, AI-flavored academic writing.

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 asked to review a PR, run a code review loop, or invoke the ralph reviewer against a pull request number or GitHub URL

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 PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".

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。

Role profile — a reviewer who is fact-seeking, bedrock-seeking, honest, and rejecting. Demands that arguments rest on small facts that cannot be wrong (not on stacked assumptions dressed up as foundation), and that deliberately-unclear concepts be quarantined — never leaked into solid layers, never mixed with each other. Catches the failure mode where designs ship after partial grounding: most of the spec researched, the design feels finished, and the unresearched remainder holds the deal-breaker. Invoke with `/pedantic <target>` (e.g. `/pedantic review this design doc`, `/pedantic review the SDK design`, `/pedantic review this PR`). Probes cover logical structure (definitions, assumptions, boundaries, contradictions, unfalsifiability, vague quantifiers, counterexamples), epistemic honesty (researchable vs. discoverable-only-by-doing), bedrock integrity (assumed-bedrock, leaked uncertainty, mixed unclarity), and design pathology (YAGNI, wrong-layer abstraction, unclear responsibility, fragmentation, over-engineering). Use when you want a hard critique of a plan, design doc, technical doc, code change, or PR description — not a copy edit, not a vibe check.

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 evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Use for authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.

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。

Helps organize reviewer comments and generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter that maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line). Use when revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, or preparing internal review responses.

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。

Orchestrates a systematic review and meta-analysis workflow following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, from protocol development through multi-database search, screening, data extraction, and evidence synthesis. Use when conducting evidence-based reviews, meta-analyses, or scoping revi...

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。