「correctness」の検索結果

TLA+ formal verification for design correctness and PBT pipeline integration

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 criteria for the nw-diverger-reviewer — validates JTBD rigor, research quality, option diversity, taste application correctness, and recommendation coherence in DIVERGE wave artifacts

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。

Implement, review, or improve SwiftUI features using the iOS 26+ Liquid Glass API. Use when asked to adopt Liquid Glass in new SwiftUI UI, refactor an existing feature to Liquid Glass, or review Liquid Glass usage for correctness, performance, and design alignment.

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-run self-evaluation system that scores agent output on correctness, clarity, actionability, and conciseness. Use after /team runs, skill executions, or when explicitly asked to evaluate output 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。

Compares tools or implementations through controlled benchmarks and independent correctness checks.

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 Swift code for concurrency correctness, modern API usage, and common async/await pitfalls. Use when reading, writing, or reviewing Swift concurrency 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。

Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request 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。

Use when the user asks to review or clean up R code for tidyverse style, standardize formatting or names, remove redundant comments or wrappers, or make a behavior-preserving style pass. Also use when writing substantial new R package code if the user requests tidyverse style or the package already follows it. Not for routine small edits or general correctness, security, or test-quality 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。

Screenshot comparison QA for frontend development. Takes a screenshot of the current implementation, scores it across multiple visual dimensions, and returns a structured PASS/REVISE/FAIL verdict with concrete fixes. Use when implementing UI from a design reference or verifying visual correctness.

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。

Validates custom dotnet new templates for correctness before publishing. Catches missing fields, parameter bugs, shortName conflicts, constraint issues, and common authoring mistakes that cause templates to fail silently. USE FOR: checking template.json files for errors before publishing or testing, diagnosing why a template doesn't appear after installation, reviewing template parameter definitions for type mismatches and missing defaults, finding shortName conflicts with dotnet CLI commands, validating post-action and constraint configuration. DO NOT USE FOR: finding or using existing templates (use template-discovery), creating projects from templates (use template-instantiation), creating templates from existing projects (use template-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。

DO NOT INVOKE when the primary request explicitly asks to convert, migrate, modernize, or rewrite a legacy/old-style project to SDK style; use msbuild-modernization. Migration prompts often mention ToolsVersion, explicit Compile/Reference entries, packages.config, or Microsoft.CSharp.targets, but merely reviewing or auditing a file that contains those patterns remains in scope here. USE FOR broad review, audit, lint, or maintainability/correctness checks of project/build files, including custom targets; prioritized cross-cutting findings; discrete anti-patterns; F# ordering/FS0039; cross-platform paths; and focused Import safety verdicts. Review/audit is analysis-only unless fixes are requested. For concrete property/item defects use property-patterns/item-management; use target-authoring for implementation and extension-points for NuGet auto-import/layout discovery. Exclude non-MSBuild systems.

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。

Author and review GitHub Actions workflow YAML safely so syntactically-valid YAML can't ship a workflow that GitHub Actions refuses to run. USE FOR: editing, adding, or reviewing any file under .github/workflows/, writing run-name/name/if/env/run values that contain ${{ }} expressions, diagnosing a run that fails with 'This run likely failed because of a workflow file issue' and no jobs starting, deciding when a workflow scalar must be quoted, validating workflows with actionlint. DO NOT USE FOR: authoring application YAML unrelated to GitHub Actions, Azure Pipelines, GitLab CI, or non-workflow YAML. SCOPE: this skill covers *syntactic/structural* correctness of workflow YAML (quoting, parsing, actionlint); for *semantic and functional* workflow design (what a workflow should do, agentic-workflow behavior), see .github/agents/agentic-workflows.agent.md — the two are complementary. INVOKES: actionlint (downloaded pinned binary) plus git/grep for inspection.

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。

Invoke when the user asks to review, check, audit, or look over Qt6 C++ code — or suggest before committing. Runs deterministic linting (60+ rules) then six parallel deep- analysis agents covering model contracts, ownership, threading, API correctness, error handling, and performance. Reports only high-confidence issues (>80/100) with structured mitigations. Read-only — never modifies 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。

Cut token usage across the whole session without losing correctness or substance — concise user replies, lean tests/docs/plans/comments, tight code, disciplined context and tool use, and cheap sub-agent delegation. Load when the user wants less verbosity, lower cost, fewer tokens, or a "token diet" / "lean mode"; also triggered by /token-diet or "token diet on".

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。

SQL query review for correctness, performance, and best practices. Activate when a query needs review before production use, shows unexpected results, or runs too slowly.

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。

Translate SQL queries into plain language business logic. Use when documenting queries, explaining analysis to non-technical stakeholders, code reviewing for correctness, or building a query catalog.

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。

Enhancement overlay for multi-agent / tool-using coder agents. Encodes the per-agent tool- scoping discipline that role-based frameworks (CrewAI, LangChain) document only as a passing best-practice: which agent gets which tool, and why blanket-sharing every tool to every agent is a correctness and blast-radius risk. Activates when an agent system has tools AND there is more than one agent (or one agent holding many tools). Treat a tool as a capability grant; scope by least-privilege. ENHANCE overlay — read alongside [[crewai]], [[agentsop-http-tool-wrapping]], [[agentsop-llm-tool-idempotency]]. Search keywords: which tools per agent, least-privilege agent, agent tool access, tool permissions, limit agent tools, scope tools to roles.overlay_type: enhancement

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 complete mathematical-modeling competition paper with an atomic checklist covering abstract readability, page structure, typography, headings, pagination, figures, tables, equations, anonymity, metadata, visual balance, and page allocation. Return the review in chat or Markdown by default, and provide the bundled single-sheet checklist when the user requests a reusable form. Use when the user provides a PDF or Word paper and asks for a full-paper format and writing-compliance audit; do not replace technical model correctness 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。

Review code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, API misuse, consistency issues, simplicity problems, or test coverage gaps and low-value tests by running internal reviews and a peer review in parallel and returning combined findings. Single-concern with a type argument, or full review with no argument. Use when the user asks to "review my code", "full code review", "review my changes", "check for bugs", "scan for bugs", "review correctness", "security audit", "find vulnerabilities", "review security", "check API usage", "verify against docs", "check for cross-file duplication", "review consistency", "check for code reuse", "review simplicity", "find untested code", "find redundant tests", or "review test coverage".

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。

Interpret third-party feedback by running parallel internal and peer interpretations to surface intent, correctness concerns, and ambiguities. Use when the user asks to "interpret feedback", "interpret comments", "what does this feedback mean", "clarify reviewer intent", "understand this review", or "interpret these suggestions".

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。

Adversarially review something just built — presume it is broken and find where. Use after implementing a feature, finishing a build, or before shipping, or whenever ATLAS or Boss wants a hostile second opinion on a diff, a running app, or a whole codebase. Spawns clean-context reviewers with opposing lenses (correctness, security, empty-world) and reproduces every finding by running the target before believing it. Distinct from /code-review, which statically reads a diff and never runs the app.

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。

Run Core's pinned local React Doctor audit after React or Next.js edits; fix actionable correctness, accessibility, composition, performance, and design findings and validate exact exceptions across all eight targets. Use when the user mentions React Doctor or requests React diagnostics or cleanup.

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。

Automatic quality control, linting, and static analysis procedures. Use after every code modification to ensure syntax correctness and project standards. Triggers onKeywords: lint, format, check, validate, types, static 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。

Draft, diagnose, and improve IEEE rebuttals, revision plans, cover letters, response letters, and point-by-point replies using routed reviewer-comment handling. Use when responding to IEEE reviewer or editor comments about novelty, scope, method, experiments, baselines, figures, tables, citations, writing, LaTeX formatting, limitations, compliance, technical correctness, or reviewer comments that appear generic, contradictory, unsupported, careless, or possibly AI-generated.

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。