615 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Reviews code changes and provides actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review a PR, diff, commit, or code changes. Triggers on "/review", "review this PR", "review my changes", "code 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 should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code 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 pull requests to code-graph-rag, a multi-language code graph parser. Focuses on graph-edge correctness in language parsers, cross-language consistency, and test fixtures that actually exercise the fix.
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, browser-driven QA pass over a branch or PR — scope it, plan it, fan out one subagent per testing area in its own isolated sandbox, compile a severity-ranked markdown report. Use for an "E2E test", "QA pass", "manual test", or "bug bash" request — broader than driving the UI to check one fix (see `playwright`) or reviewing a diff (see `code-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。
Systematically reviews code for SQL injection, XSS, SSRF, broken access control, cryptographic failures, and other common OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, providing vulnerable code examples and ready-to-use remediation guidance. Trigger this skill when users ask for a security review, vulnerability scan, or penetration testing assistance, or mention keywords like OWASP, SQL injection, XSS, code audit, or security checklist.
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 should be used when the user asks to review a diff or pull request, write review comments, audit code quality, establish review standards, or improve how a team performs code 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。
Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.
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。
Expert multi-AI code review with inline PR comments — use for thorough quality and security 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 completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
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 receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
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。
Dedicated security-audit route for OWASP-style risks, secret leaks, auth flaws, injection, unsafe input handling, SSRF/XSS, and sensitive-data exposure. Use instead of code-reviewer when the prompt explicitly asks for security, vulnerability, threat, auth, or OWASP 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。
Prepare and request a code review after implementation or before merge by assembling scope, requirements, git range, and reviewer instructions.
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。
Review source files changed during a phase for bugs, security issues, and code quality problems
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。
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
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 receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
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。
Make AI-generated writing read as human-written, in fiction and in professional prose. Repairs the narrative architecture of fiction and stories (based on StoryScope, arXiv:2604.03136); routes professional text through domain rules for release notes, announcements, PR and issue replies, code-review comments, incident postmortems, tickets, work orders, technical articles, blog posts, and long-form journalism. Four operations - write, review (diagnose AI tells without editing), refactor (minimal in-place edits), recreate (full rewrite). Use when asked to humanize, de-AI, unslop, or strip AI flavor from any text; when writing or revising any of these document types; or whenever output must not read as machine-written.
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。
Security-focused code review checklist and automated scanning patterns. Use when reviewing pull requests for security issues, auditing authentication/authorization code, checking for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, or validating input sanitization. Covers SQL injection prevention, XSS protection, CSRF tokens, authentication flow review, secrets detection, dependency vulnerability scanning, and secure coding patterns for Python (FastAPI) and React. Does NOT cover deployment security (use docker-best-practices) or incident handling (use incident-response).
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 code diffs and files for security vulnerabilities (OWASP Top 10), error handling, complexity, naming conventions, and performance issues. Use when the user asks to review a PR, pull request, diff, merge request, or code changes.
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。
在进行 Code Review 时，使用这个技能对 LoongCollector 变更进行安全导向、架构一致性优先的深度代码评审。
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。
Adversarial dual-model code review that runs two AI models in parallel, cross-references findings, and produces a consensus severity table with fix confidence ratings. Use when asked for a thorough code review, adversarial review, dual-model review, confidence-rated review, or 'Hanselman 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。
Conducts and responds to code review — reviewing a change for correctness, design, and risk, and evaluating review feedback received on your own work. Use this before merging, when asked to review a diff or pull request, when review feedback has arrived and needs acting on, or when feedback seems wrong and needs a reasoned response rather than 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。