1.1万 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
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。
Pick the right LLM for CONTRACT REVIEW — reviewing an existing agreement for risk, deviations from standard, missing protections, and internal contradictions, and proposing redlines. Vendor-neutral routing grounded in mid-2026 legal benchmarks. Contract review is a COMPOSITE skill (extraction + reasoning + redlining + conflict-detection), so this routes by the dominant sub-task. Asks up to 4 quick questions (cost, speed, accuracy/stakes, privacy/jurisdiction/ language), then recommends a primary model + fallback + what to avoid + what a human must verify. Use when someone asks "which model to review this contract / NDA / MSA", "best AI to redline", "route this contract review", or is about to review an agreement without a fixed model.
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 local code changes for bugs, regressions, missing tests, and pragmatic improvements. Use when the user asks to review the current changes from `git status`, or to review a specific backlog task by id such as `task-65` or `TASK-65`. Also trigger when the user says things like "review", "review current changes", "check my changes", "look over the diff", or "review task-42".
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 leader must review or approve TEXT-based team output before it ships — content briefs checked for angle, pillar, and CTA, ad copy and creative checked for substantiated claims, on-brand tone, a hook inside the first 125 characters, and platform policy, ending in an Approve, Revise, or Redo verdict with point-by-point feedback. Trigger on 'review this brief', 'approve the ad copy', 'check ads before launch', 'review team output', 'is this good enough to publish', 'my team keeps sending me drafts'. Not for — reviewing a visual design, see `47-design-review-global`; evaluating a person over a period, see `65-team-performance-review-global`; writing the copy yourself, see `05-ad-copy-global`.
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, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using the rationale recalled from past Codex session history). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address PR feedback", "handle review comments", "address review feedback", "respond to PR comments", "answer review questions", or "address 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 a pull request by fetching PR comments, running a comprehensive code review, evaluating findings, and dispatching to implementation. Use when the user asks to "review PR", "review pull request", "review this PR", "check PR before merging", or "full PR 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, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using the rationale recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to "resolve PR comments", "fix review comments", "address PR feedback", "handle review comments", "address review feedback", "respond to PR comments", "answer review questions", or "address 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。
Address PR reviewer feedback by evaluating comments, proposing fixes, and executing after user approval. Use when the user wants to handle review comments on an existing PR, address PR feedback, fix PR comments, respond to reviewer suggestions, or process code review feedback. Triggers on "address PR feedback", "handle review comments", "fix PR comments", "respond to PR review", "process reviewer feedback", or when given a PR number/URL with intent to address its comments.
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。
Guides the periodic DPIA review lifecycle including trigger identification for regulatory changes, new data categories, technology changes, and breach incidents. Covers version control, stakeholder sign-off procedures, and DPIA register management per Art. 35(11). Keywords: DPIA review, PIA update, review cadence, version control, Art. 35(11), periodic review, trigger events, stakeholder sign-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。
CodeRabbit reviews pull requests with AI on GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps and Bitbucket, and reviews local changes from a CLI before they are pushed. Use when a user asks to set up automated PR reviews, write or validate a .coderabbit.yaml, add path-specific review instructions, control a review with @coderabbitai commands, or run coderabbit review from the terminal or a coding agent.
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。
Code review specialist for quality standards, design patterns, security review, and constructive feedbackUse when "code review, pull request, PR review, code quality, refactor, technical debt, design pattern, best practice, code-review, quality, patterns, security, refactoring, best-practices, pull-request, review, ml-memory" 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。
The systematic discipline of reviewing AI-generated and human-written marketing content for quality, accuracy, consistency, and effectiveness. This isn't proofreading—it's strategic quality control that catches issues before they damage brand, waste spend, or miss opportunities. In an era where AI can generate content at scale, QA becomes the bottleneck— and the moat. Speed without quality is just fast failure. Every piece of content is a brand promise, and QA ensures that promise is kept. Content QA operates at multiple levels: tactical (spelling, grammar), strategic (message alignment), technical (platform compliance), and brand (voice, tone). The best QA catches what the creator couldn't see because they were too close. Use when "review content, QA, quality check, proofread, check copy, content review, brand compliance, verify content, fact check, review before publish, content approval, final review, qa, content-review, quality-assurance, brand-compliance, proofreading, content-quality, review" 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。
Reviews a change before it is merged, from little or no input. With nothing typed it reviews the branch you are on, uncommitted work included, against its base, its PR and its ticket, so a developer can check their own work before asking for review. With PR links, repo#N or a branch it reviews someone else's change the same way, several repos at once. It judges the failed CI checks and every Bugbot and reviewer comment, gets a fresh breaker review, traces every other piece of code that uses what changed, proves each finding or marks it unproven, says what the merge needs (a build, env vars, migrations, deploy order) and how to check the deploy, never posts to GitHub, and offers fixes only after the report. Runs only when the user types it.
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。
Review, triage, and resolve PR review comments. Use when user asks to check PR comments, address review feedback, fix issues raised in review, reply to reviewers, or resolve review threads.
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。
Hand off code review to OpenAI Codex CLI. Use when asked to "review code with codex", "codex review", "get a second opinion on code", "review my changes", "review this PR", or when you want AI-powered code review from a different model perspective.
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。
Perform a rigorous Carmack Council code review. Use when explicitly asked to review code, do a "council review", "carmack review", or invoke /council-review. Carmack's philosophy chairs a council of domain experts — Troy Hunt (security), Martin Fowler (refactoring), Kent C. Dodds (frontend), Matteo Collina (Node.js), Brandur Leach (Postgres), Vercel Performance, Simon Willison (LLM pipelines), Karri Saarinen (UI quality), Vitaly Friedman (UX quality), Kent Beck (test quality). Uses parallel subagents for deep, independent review. Produces prioritised P1/P2/P3 findings. Stack: Next.js App Router / React / TypeScript / tRPC / Prisma / Neon / Clerk.
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。
Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated progression.
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。
Before committing any non-trivial change, dispatch the diff to a reviewer runtime via ATO (`ato dispatch <reviewer> --session <id>`), parse the numbered/severity-tagged findings, apply or defer each one with a recorded justification, then commit. Fights the "build passes therefore ship it" failure mode — what Garry Tan calls the AI agent complexity ratchet. Place in the v2.16 stack: this skill is the LAST gate. `ato-warroom` decides the design; `ato-mission` runs the multi-step work and produces the diff; `ato-review` checks the diff before commit. When the review is part of a Mission, dispatch the review with `--require-tools read_file,grep,git_diff,git_log` so the reviewer can walk the source itself instead of reasoning from a paraphrase (PR-1.5 tool surface). Receipts land in `execution_logs` and the Mission narrative. Fires automatically before commits touching public surface (CLI subcommands, Tauri commands, MCP tools, schema migrations, security boundaries) or whenever a diff exceeds ~50 LOC of behavior change.
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。