「edge cases」の検索結果

Systematically explore and test any software project (CLI, API, Backend, Library, etc.) to find bugs, usability issues, and edge cases. Produces a structured report with full reproduction evidence (exact commands, inputs, logs, and tracebacks) for every issue.

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。

The model-generator shape for Skmtc: one definition per component schema, built by copying the shipped SKELETON package and filling its SLOT markers with the target library's syntax. Covers the edge cases every model generator must survive — refs, recursion, optional vs nullable, additionalProperties, enums, readOnly/writeOnly. Use when authoring or editing a generator that maps schemas to a validator/schema/type library ("write a gen-<lib>", "map OpenAPI models to <lib>"). Load ALONGSIDE skmtc-generator (engine rules) and skmtc-lang-typescript (TS layer).

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。

Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan — architecture, data flow, diagrams, edge cases, test coverage, performance. Walks through issues interactively with opinionated recommendations.

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。

Ward the codebase — an ad-hoc test-gap audit that reveals unguarded code (untested functions, uncovered edge cases, missing error-handling and integration tests) and conjures ready-to-paste test skeletons as protective wards against regression, surfaced inline in the session. Scoped to your current diff by default, or to a path/area you name. Use before merging risky changes or when you suspect thin coverage. Replaces the old always-on `testgaps` daemon worker (alias: /test-gaps).

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。

Try to break a piece of UI by feeding it worst-case data — long names, unbreakable emails, one-letter names, missing fields, huge counts, zero items, long labels, non-Latin text, emoji, extreme numbers — then render it behind a "Demo data / Worst case" toggle and report everything that broke, with the fix for each. Use when the user asks to stress-test, break, or find edge cases in a component or screen, or to "try the worst case". For visual design critique use emil-design-eng; for motion use review-animations.

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 to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

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。

Eng manager-mode plan review. Lock in the execution plan, data flow, diagrams, edge cases.

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。

Evaluate error handling, i18n, text overflow, and edge cases.

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。

Call germline SNPs and indels with GATK HaplotypeCaller and the GVCF joint-genotyping workflow. Covers the local-reassembly + PairHMM mechanism (why HC beats pileup callers on indels), the -ERC GVCF reference-confidence model and <NON_REF> allele, BQSR-vs-DRAGSTR and --dragen-mode error modeling, allele-specific (AS_) annotations, and edge cases (ploidy, Mutect2 mitochondria mode, sex chromosomes/PAR, contamination gating). Use when deciding whether to use HaplotypeCaller vs a pileup or DRAGEN caller, whether BQSR still earns its place, whether to call per-sample GVCFs for a cohort, or how to handle non-diploid, mitochondrial, sex-chromosome, or contaminated samples. Not for post-calling filtering depth (see variant-calling/filtering-best-practices) or cohort joint-genotyping scaling (see variant-calling/joint-calling).

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。

Derive an execution roadmap from a project's vision/spec docs by first principles, then diff that fresh derivation against the existing roadmap to prove the task ORDER is correct. Use this whenever the user wants to review, validate, re-derive, or sanity-check an execution roadmap or delivery plan; asks whether the tasks/epics are "in the right order"; suspects a task is scheduled before its prerequisite (a producer-after-consumer / dependency-inversion error like "OpenAPI after the web client that consumes it", OR a cross-cutting inherited default like observability/auth/tenancy scheduled after the feature work that inherits it — a seam-after-consumer error); wants to find missing tasks, circular dependencies, or over-fragmented epics; or wants to compact a plan to raise velocity. Also trigger on "review the roadmap", "re-derive the plan from the spec", "is this the right build order", "check the dependency graph of our epics", "which task should come first". It reads the vision + spec corpus, decomposes actors → use-cases → modules → epics → typed tasks, identifies cross-cutting inherited-default seams, builds a real dependency graph with hard + soft (seam) edges (deterministic helper), breaks cycles, topologically orders, compacts, and emits a derived roadmap PLUS a delta report against the current one — it never blindly overwrites a hand-crafted roadmap.

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 to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

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。

Pitfalls, examples, and edge cases for Hermes Kanban workers. The lifecycle itself is auto-injected into every worker's system prompt as KANBAN_GUIDANCE (from agent/prompt_builder.py); this skill is what you load when you want deeper detail on specific scenarios.

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。

Frontend UI design, critique, audit, polish. Use when the user wants to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

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。

Re-audit code changes to identify side effects, regression risks, and unhandled edge cases before merging or deploying. Use after a change is complete and before merging to a shared branch, before deploying a hotfix, after complex multi-module refactoring, or when a previous review may have missed side effects in async, state-mutating, or security-sensitive code paths.

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 a diff needs correctness review — null-safety, edge cases, off-by-one, races, error handling — dispatched by /review-changes, /do-and-judge, /judge, even without 'judge'.

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 to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

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。

Test API endpoints for correctness, edge cases, auth handling, and OpenAPI contract compliance.

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。

GStack engineering-manager plan review for architecture, data flow, APIs, migrations, edge cases, tests, performance, release risk, and implementation boundaries.

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 to design, redesign, shape, critique, audit, polish, clarify, distill, harden, optimize, adapt, animate, colorize, extract, or otherwise improve a frontend interface. Covers websites, landing pages, dashboards, product UI, app shells, components, forms, settings, onboarding, and empty states. Handles UX review, visual hierarchy, information architecture, cognitive load, accessibility, performance, responsive behavior, theming, anti-patterns, typography, fonts, spacing, layout, alignment, color, motion, micro-interactions, UX copy, error states, edge cases, i18n, and reusable design systems or tokens. Also use for bland designs that need to become bolder or more delightful, loud designs that should become quieter, live browser iteration on UI elements, or ambitious visual effects that should feel technically extraordinary. Not for backend-only or non-UI tasks.

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 product requirement, PRD, brief, or meeting note before design or development; expose missing decisions, contradictions, edge cases, dependencies, and validation gaps without inventing business rules.

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 a learner has surface understanding and needs to explore mechanism, tradeoffs, edge cases, and production implications at depth.

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。

Designs a pre-launch evaluation plan for a declarative agent from its instructions text, skills, capabilities, knowledge sources and sample requests: a behaviour contract of testable statements quoted from the text, test prompts by scenario family and tier with setup, expected behaviour, pass and fail criteria and red flags, a red-flag catalogue, a blank scoring sheet, a coverage table and a go or no-go checklist the owner completes and decides. Use when the user asks to "write test cases for my agent", "how do I evaluate this agent before launch", "build a test plan for the agent", "what should I check before publishing this agent" or "give me a go no-go checklist". Do not use for finding injection or leakage exposures in the instructions, use agent-instructions-red-team instead; do not use for reviewing one SKILL.md, use skill-file-reviewer 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。

Remove signs of AI-generated code from a codebase while preserving behavior. Use when editing or reviewing code to make it read like a human engineer on this team wrote it. Works through a test-guarded detect-modify-verify loop: pin down the functional contract and edge cases first, write or run tests as a safety net, then rewrite AI tells (redundant comments, emoji, verbose names, reflexive try/except, defensive null-guards, over-decomposition, speculative abstraction, dead code, non-idiomatic constructs, hallucinated dependencies) and re-verify after every change. The tests decide whether a defensive block is slop or a real safeguard.

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。

Evaluates downstream tests for coverage and edge cases.

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。