1.4万 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Expert in the human side of code review. Covers giving feedback that lands, receiving criticism gracefully, navigating disagreements, and building a healthy review culture. Understands that code review is as much about relationships as it is about code quality. Use when "code review, PR feedback, review comments, how to give feedback, harsh review, review culture, constructive criticism, " mentioned.
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。
Orchestrate a broad Incan review using specialized reviewer roles, parallel slice reports, and a canonical merged review report. Use when the user asks for delegated review, multi-agent review, or when a broad dirty worktree should be reviewed by specialized passes rather than one generic reviewer.
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。
Multi-agent adversarial code review. Spawns three reviewer subagents (Auditor, Adversary, Pragmatist) on a single model, runs a cross-examination round, then deterministically synthesizes a single ranked report. Use this for non-trivial PRs, security-sensitive changes, refactors that touch many files, or any change where one perspective has obvious blind spots. Trigger phrases include "adverse review", "adversarial review", "multi-perspective review", "review my changes from multiple angles", "panel review". NOT suitable for trivial diffs (typos, dependency bumps, formatting).
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。
Guide for implementing smooth, native-feeling animations using React's View Transition API (`<ViewTransition>` component, `addTransitionType`, and CSS view transition pseudo-elements). Use this skill whenever the user wants to add page transitions, animate route changes, create shared element animations, animate enter/exit of components, animate list reorder, implement directional (forward/back) navigation animations, or integrate view transitions in Next.js. Also use when the user mentions view transitions, `startViewTransition`, `ViewTransition`, transition types, or asks about animating between UI states in React without third-party animation libraries.
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。
Runs a single Codex (ChatGPT/OpenAI) review check-fix cycle on a PR using gh CLI. Use this skill whenever the user wants to: check and fix Codex review comments, request a Codex code review on a PR, or iterate on PR feedback from the chatgpt-codex-connector bot. Trigger on phrases like 'codex review', '@codex review', 'fix codex comments', 'iterate on PR', 're-review with codex', or when the user mentions 'gh pr' with 'codex'. Combine with /loop for automated repeated cycles, e.g. '/loop 2m /codex-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。
This skill provides expert-level guidance for implementing VS Code WebView features. Use when creating WebView panels, implementing secure CSP policies, handling Extension-WebView communication, managing WebView state persistence, optimizing WebView performance, or debugging WebView rendering issues. Covers security best practices, message protocols, and VS Code-specific WebView patterns.
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。
Deep code review - Elixir idioms, Phoenix patterns, architecture, safety. Launches 3 parallel reviewers + plan-reviewer gate. Use when: review, review this, code review, check this code, review my changes, is this good, what do you think, code smells.
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。
N-round adversarial review pipeline for empirical research output — the chain from data to LaTeX tables to a manuscript that cites them. A Claude drafter proposes minimal diffs, a deterministic mechanical battery gates every diff from a clean state with a regression gate, a Codex reviewer files check-backed critiques, and a blind judge panel decides residual disputes. Manual-invoke ONLY: trigger when the user explicitly runs /adversarial-empirical-review or names 'adversarial-empirical-review' / 'adversarial empirical review'. Do NOT auto-trigger on generic 'review my results', 'check my tables', or manuscript-editing requests. For prose-style refinement use style-emulation instead; this skill AUDITS WHETHER THE TABLES ARE CORRECT — that each number in the tables is what the analysis code computes, reproduces from the data, and is internally consistent. It is an empirical + code review: the manuscript is read only to resolve table numbering, and prose is not examined.
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。
Comprehensive UI/UX design review with live environment testing, responsive validation, accessibility compliance (WCAG 2.1 AA), and visual consistency analysis using Playwright. Use when user runs /design-review, /review:design-review, requests a "design review", "UI review", "UX audit", or mentions "review the design", "check accessibility", "responsive 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。
Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
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。
Guide for implementing smooth, native-feeling animations using React's View Transition API (`<ViewTransition>` component, `addTransitionType`, and CSS view transition pseudo-elements). Use this skill whenever the user wants to add page transitions, animate route changes, create shared element animations, animate enter/exit of components, animate list reorder, implement directional (forward/back) navigation animations, or integrate view transitions in Next.js. Also use when the user mentions view transitions, `startViewTransition`, `ViewTransition`, transition types, or asks about animating between UI states in React without third-party animation libraries.
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。
WCAG 準拠のアクセシビリティチェックをチェックリスト駆動で実行するスキル。 コンポーネント・ページ・PR に対して Pass/Fail/N/A/Needs review の構造化レポートを 生成し、エビデンスと修正案を提示する。 「アクセシビリティチェック」「a11y チェック」「WCAG をチェック」「a11y レビュー」 「アクセシビリティ監査」「WCAG 準拠確認」「アクセシビリティレポート」への言及、 または PR やコンポーネントのアクセシビリティレビュー依頼で発動する。 English: "check accessibility", "a11y audit", "a11y check", "WCAG review", "accessibility report", "screen reader test", "review for a11y", "review this PR for accessibility", "axe audit"
Conducts multi-axis code review across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Triggers on "review my PR", "review this diff", "code review", "review this changeset", "is this ready to merge", "pre-merge 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 reviewing or auditing a library of Claude Code skills, agents, slash commands, and workflows — frontmatter correctness, routing quality, tool allowlists, command arg-hints, workflow meta/phase coherence, cross-reference coherence, single-responsibility, file structure, and anti-pattern detection. Triggers on mentions of "review skills", "audit agents", "skill library", "agent definition review", "review this command", "review this workflow", "is this skill right", or when iterating on `.claude/skills/`, `.claude/agents/`, `.claude/commands/`, or `.claude/workflows/` directories. For code review of source code see code-review-and-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。
Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
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。
Ultra-compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", "/review", or invokes /caveman-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
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 a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-reviewer. 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, pricing plan, go-to-market plan or forecast in character as a Chief Revenue Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to exact passages, revenue risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CRO review", "pressure-test the revenue plan", "what would sales leadership say about this" or "challenge this forecast". Do not use for partnership, deal-structure or market-positioning reviews, use cbo-reviewer instead; for the finance seat use cfo-reviewer. 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-reviewer. 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。
Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, use ciso-reviewer. 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。
When the user wants to improve their app's star rating, increase ratings volume, optimize when and how they prompt users for a review, or recover from a bad rating period. Use when the user mentions "app rating", "star rating", "review prompt", "SKStoreReviewRequest", "In-App Review API", "ask for review", "low rating", "rating drop", "get more reviews", or "recover from 1-star". For responding to reviews, see review-management. For overall ASO health, see aso-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。