3,052 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Scan application source, agent skills, and MCP components; run penetration tests against scoped web test deployments, validate findings, and configure scan gates. Use oma-qa for broad quality reviews and domain skills for remediation.
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。
Restructure existing code while preserving observable behavior. Use for targeted technical debt or hotspot work with characterization tests.
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。
Diagnose a reproducible failure, fix its cause, and verify the regression. Use for crashes, incorrect behavior, and failing tests.
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。
Bug diagnosis and fixing specialist - analyzes errors, identifies root causes, provides fixes, and writes regression tests. Use for bug, debug, error, crash, traceback, exception, and regression 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。
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with 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。
Records visual proof while testing UI behavior — the agent tests the app hands-on via computer use while a screen recording with structured test/assertion annotations captures the session — then posts the video and a results summary to the PR and tracker issue. Use whenever a change needs verifiable evidence that it works, instead of prose claims — including headless environments (scripted screenshots and probes) and non-UI changes (measured numbers, output pairs).
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。
Change or repair code, config or services without weakening tests; report what ran and what did not. Use when: implementing a change or fixing a defect.
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。
Generate test scenarios, write the test file, and run it for a specific source file using the tailtest R1-R15 rule layer. When the agent needs to (1) cover a file the Stop hook skipped, (2) regenerate tests after refactoring, (3) test a legacy file Codex did not modify this session, or (4) explicitly run tailtest on a named file.
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 run tests
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 add tests for Julia packages
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。
Rules as hypotheses: falsifiable tests, confidence updates, graduate or kill. Triggers: experiment, hypothesis, prove, test rule, validate methodology, 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。
Execute a single Todo task through In Progress to Review, meeting every acceptance criterion with tests and vibe-lint checks. Refuses Planning-status tasks. Invoked as /agiflow:run-task <task>. Uses get_task, update_task, create_task_comment.
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 wiring an existing DataFusion or datafusion-spark function into Comet for a Spark expression. Identifies the right wiring pattern (one-line passthrough, datafusion-spark UDF registration, or custom serde with input massaging / restrictions), applies the Scala serde, registers the UDF in jni_api when needed, and adds SQL file tests. Assumes the function already exists upstream — if not, switch to `implement-comet-expression`.
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 an existing Comet expression for correctness and test coverage. Studies the Spark implementation across versions 3.4.3, 3.5.8, 4.0.1, and 4.1.1, reviews the Comet and DataFusion implementations, identifies missing test coverage, and offers to implement additional tests.
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 production code before it ships, using Clean Code, SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, and LLM-specific failure-mode checks in any programming language. Best used reactively after an agent writes, edits, refactors, or fixes code, before presenting, committing, or merging the result. Use when the user asks "review this PR", "is this safe to merge?", "make this cleaner", "audit this code", "refactor this", "fix this bug", or after a coding agent produced implementation code. Can also guide writing when explicitly invoked before a risky edit. Invoke it on your own initiative the moment you finish writing, editing, or refactoring non-trivial production code, before presenting or committing — don't wait to be asked. DO NOT USE for factual/conceptual questions, CI/tooling config, git workflow, running/debugging tests, pure architecture discussion, prose writing, data analysis, or test-code review (use test-guard).
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 designing or auditing AISTATS experiments, simulations, baselines, statistical tests, uncertainty estimates, ablations, random seeds, hyperparameters, compute, dataset handling, and claim-to-evidence fit, with emphasis on experiments that validate theorems rather than chase leaderboards.
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 deciding whether a microeconomics project fits the American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) rather than JET, GEB, Theoretical Economics, Econometrica, or AEJ: Applied. Tests scope and broad-interest fit; it does not develop the model (see aejmic-theory-model).
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 identification argument is the bottleneck for an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript — causal identification in an empirical design, parameter identification in a structural model, or treatment-effect identification in an experiment. Stress-tests the strategy so it is clean enough to defend in a few pages, before exhibits are finalized.
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 calibrating expectations for the fast, decisive American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) review process — conditional-accept-or-reject decisions, the single-round model, and pre-empting the objections a short paper cannot afford. Explains the process and stress-tests the paper; it does not write the response letter (see aeri-rebuttal).
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 question is what makes the result tight or what the data identify for an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript — covering both (a) structural/empirical-IO and experimental identification and (b) for pure theory, which assumptions drive the result and how robust the mechanism is. Stress-tests credibility; it does not build the model (see aejmic-theory-model).
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 deciding whether a project is the ONE crisp, important, well-identified insight that an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) short-format manuscript requires, rather than a multi-result paper for AER or a field paper for the AEJ family. Tests single-insight fit; it does not run the 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。
Use when deciding whether a macro paper fits the American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) rather than AER, J. Monetary Economics, RED, or AEJ: Applied. Tests the broad-interest macro bar and venue fit; it does not write the paper or fix identification.
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 deciding what characterization and experimental detail an Advanced Materials manuscript must show to prove its structure–property claim, and what belongs in the Experimental Section and Supporting Information. Partitions and stress-tests methods; does not design figures or run 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。
Use when the empirical identification of a macro shock or dynamic causal effect is the bottleneck for an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) manuscript — SVAR, local projections, narrative, high-frequency/proxy-VAR, or micro-data macro designs. Stress-tests the identification to the AEJ: Macro broad-interest quantitative bar; for model-parameter identification see aejmac-theory-model.
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。