「rev」の検索結果

Review the current diff, or a PR number/branch/path target, for correctness bugs (plus reuse/simplification/efficiency cleanups where the model's review recipe covers them) at the given effort level (low|medium|high|xhigh|max: from few high-confidence findings up to many, some of them uncertain; ultra: deep multi-agent review in the cloud); with no level given, it reuses the level you typed last. Pass --comment to post findings as inline PR comments, or --fix to apply the findings to the working tree after the review. Pass --max-findings <n> to report up to n findings, or --max-findings all for every finding. The choice stays until you pass --max-findings default. For ultra on a GitHub.com PR target, --post asks to post the finished review’s findings to the PR as a single comment from the user’s GitHub account (not a review; the launch dialog still confirms in interactive sessions, while non-interactive mode posts on the flag alone) and --no-post hides that option.

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 one or more installed review lenses — adversarial critique, edge cases, verification gaps, structure, prose — and reports triaged findings. Use when, and only when, the user asks you to review a diff, a pull request, or an artifact — code or documents, one or many — and actually says "review"; an explicit skill:bmad-review directive from another skill counts as that ask. A request to act on feedback from an earlier review is a change, not a review. Never invoke this uninvited, including on edits you just made.

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。

Revenue leadership for B2B SaaS companies. Revenue forecasting, sales model design, pricing strategy, net revenue retention, and sales team scaling. Use when designing the revenue engine, setting quotas, modeling NRR, evaluating pricing, building board forecasts, or when user mentions CRO, chief revenue officer, revenue strategy, sales model, ARR growth, NRR, expansion revenue, churn, pricing strategy, or sales capacity.

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。

Autonomous multi-round research review loop. Repeatedly reviews using Gemini via gemini-review MCP, implements fixes, and re-reviews until positive assessment or max rounds reached. Use when user says "auto review loop", "review until it passes", or wants autonomous iterative improvement.

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。

Autonomous multi-round research review loop. Repeatedly reviews using Claude Code via claude-review MCP, implements fixes, and re-reviews until positive assessment or max rounds reached. Use when user says "auto review loop", "review until it passes", or wants autonomous iterative improvement.

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。

Two-thread adversarial review: a fresh reviewer constructs the strongest 200-word rejection memo, then a second fresh reviewer defends the paper point-by-point and surfaces still-unresolved critical issues. Use when user says "kill argument", "adversarial review", "hostile review", "rebuttal preparation", "reviewer-2 simulation", or before submitting a theory paper that has already passed standard review rounds.

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。

Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quality. Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass.

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 file-focused code review for correctness bugs. Unlike shallow-review which runs 6 specialists in parallel across the entire patch, deep-review focuses on user-specified files with full pattern catalogs (500+ patterns), codebase investigation, and source-level context gathering. Use when: the user specifies particular files for focused review, a shallow review flagged areas that need deeper investigation, reviewing critical-path code changes, examining complex serialization/lifecycle/state-machine changes. The user instructs which files to focus on (typically a subset of files in the patch).

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 an autonomous review-and-fix improvement loop over a Claude Code skill until a review comes back clean, with a cross-round findings ledger, escalation when fixes stop converging, and a mechanical scope guard. Reviews are performed by the plugin-dev skill-reviewer agent. Use to fix skill quality issues, iteratively refine a skill, or resume a loop after an escalation ('fix my skill', 'improve this skill until it passes review', 'skill improvement loop'). NOT for a one-time review — use the plugin-dev skill-reviewer agent directly.

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 for `/loopx-pr-review` or evidence-backed PR queue review. Run `loopx pr-review` first, execute the capability-owned review plan for each selected exact head, then publish full bilingual PR reviews (complete Chinese five-block review plus one concise English verdict) that match the verified findings. Use `loopx-pr-merge` for approval or merge actions.

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 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。

Revise an academic paper based on internal review comments. Reads review report or annotated manuscript, then applies revisions one by one with user approval. Trigger when user says "self revise" / "paper-selfrevise" / "内部修改" / "根据审稿意见修改".

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。

Write comprehensive literature reviews for medical imaging AI research. Use when writing survey papers, systematic reviews, or literature analyses on topics like segmentation, detection, classification in CT, MRI, X-ray, ultrasound, or pathology imaging. Triggers on requests for "review paper", "survey", "literature review", "综述", "systematic review", or mentions of writing academic reviews on deep learning for medical imaging.

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。

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題.

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 of a PR, branch, or your own uncommitted work across eight dimensions — security, correctness, test coverage, API/compatibility, usability, documentation, code quality, performance. Sizes the diff, reviews inline or fans out reviewers off a shared brief, verifies findings against code, reports a grouped list with a shape verdict, fixes on approval. Use for "review this PR", "/pr-review 3011", or a pre-flight self-review before submitting; add "thorough" for adversarial verification.

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。

Parallel read-only multi-agent review of a current git diff or explicit file scope to find behavioral regressions, security or privacy risks, performance or reliability issues, and contract or test coverage gaps. Use when the user asks for a review swarm, parallel review, diff review, regression review, security review, or wants high-signal issues plus a prioritized fix path without editing files.

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。

Monitor dividend portfolios with Kanchi-style forced-review triggers (T1-T5) and convert anomalies into OK/WARN/REVIEW states without auto-selling. Use when users ask for 減配検知, 8-Kガバナンス監視, 配当安全性モニタリング, REVIEWキュー自動化, or periodic dividend risk checks.

When the user wants to analyze, respond to, or improve their app reviews and ratings. Also use when the user mentions "reviews", "ratings", "negative reviews", "how to get more reviews", "review response", or "my rating is dropping". For broader ASO audit, see aso-audit. For retention issues causing bad reviews, see retention-optimization.

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。

Evaluate performance fairly when output is AI-assisted — what still measures the human, what now measures the tooling, and how to run the review conversation. Use when reviewing someone whose work is heavily AI-assisted, when output volume stopped meaning anything, when calibrating a team with uneven AI adoption, or when writing review criteria for the AI era. Produces review guidance: a what-measures-whom analysis, rewritten criteria, calibration rules for mixed-adoption teams, and conversation scripts. For the general review document use performance-review; for redesigning the role itself use role-redesign-for-ai.

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 AI-authored code for its characteristic failure modes — plausible-but-wrong logic, hallucinated APIs, over-engineering, dead scaffolding, and silent security shortcuts. Use when reviewing an AI-generated or heavily AI-assisted PR, when AI-written code keeps shipping subtle bugs, or when setting review standards for a team using coding agents. Produces a focused review with AI-specific findings, verification steps per risk class, and a team checklist for AI-authored changes. For general PR review use code-review-checklist — this skill covers what that one assumes a human wouldn't do.

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 explaining or planning around AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review release, the double-blind rebuttal on preliminary reviews, area-chair discussion, the mixed game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewer pool, the public posting of reviews and decisions, and how acceptance criteria weigh the interaction contribution.

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 an independent code review using the OpenAI Codex CLI in headless mode. Gets a second opinion from a different model family (the current Codex models) on recent changes, a PR, a commit, or the whole app — covering bugs, regressions, security, data consistency, UX/state bugs, performance risks, and testing gaps. Saves a severity-prioritised report to .jez/reviews/. Triggers: 'codex review', 'review with codex', 'independent code review', 'what does codex think', 'get codex to 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。

Fetch unread GitHub notifications for open PRs where review is requested from a specified team or opened by a team member. Use when asked to "find PRs I need to review", "show my review requests", "what needs my review", "fetch GitHub review requests", or "check team review queue".

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。