「review」の検索結果

Establish review gates — criteria, checkpoints, and approval flow. Use when work ships without consistent review. For running one individual session, use `design-critique`.

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 AWS Security Agent threat model review on spec/design documents. Use when the user asks to review a spec for security, run a threat model, check if a design introduces security risks, review requirements.md or design.md for security posture changes, or STRIDE 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。

Designs, reviews, and debugs DynamoDB data layers from design axioms — enumerates access patterns, chooses partition/sort keys and GSIs, decides single-table vs. multi-table, configures Streams, Global Tables, TTL, vector indexes for similarity search, and zero-ETL integrations to OpenSearch/Redshift/SageMaker Lakehouse, and produces a defensible data-layer design with a monthly cost estimate and optional live validation. Applies whenever a user is designing, reviewing, or refactoring anything backed by DynamoDB — schemas, access patterns, GSIs, single- vs. multi-table choices, Streams consumers, transactional outboxes, Global Tables, zero-ETL pipelines, or storing embeddings and running semantic/vector similarity search with SearchVectors on items already in DynamoDB — even when they don't say "axioms" or "design review." Also applies when debugging hot partitions, throttling, unbounded Scans, LWW conflicts, or surprise bills on DynamoDB workloads.

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。

Design isolated Algolia development, staging, preview, and production targets with explicit promotion rules. Use when environments share credentials or index names, or previews need bounded search data. Trigger with "Algolia environments", "Algolia staging setup", or "preview index".

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。

Detect current high-risk Adobe integration traps before they become production incidents. Use when the task requires adobe integration pitfall review. Trigger with "Adobe pitfalls", "review Adobe integration", or "find obsolete Adobe code".

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。

Keep a reviewable decision trail for long-running or unattended work: a TSV log with one row per decision (what, why, evidence, result). Local by default; commit it when a reviewer needs the trail to trust the result. Use for /show-me-your-work, autonomous or multi-phase runs, or work a human reviews after stepping away.

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 "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.

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 evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Use for authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.

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 comprehensive, systematic literature reviews using multiple academic databases (PubMed, arXiv, bioRxiv, Semantic Scholar, etc.). This skill should be used when conducting systematic literature reviews, meta-analyses, research synthesis, or comprehensive literature searches across biomedical, scientific, and technical domains. Creates professionally formatted markdown documents and PDFs with verified citations in multiple citation styles (APA, Nature, Vancouver, etc.).

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。

Delegate a coding task to Muse Code (`muse`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Muse — phrasings like "have Muse do X", "delegate this to Muse", "run it through Muse", or "use Muse to implement/fix/refactor" — or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through Muse while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. It applies only when the user wants that separate `muse exec` implementer run: if you are Muse yourself and the user simply asks you to write the code, do it directly. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline.

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。

Delegate a coding task to the OpenAI Codex CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Codex — phrasings like "have Codex do X", "delegate this to Codex", "run it through Codex", or "use Codex to implement/fix/refactor" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Codex while staying the reviewer. Prefer it over a one-shot Codex forwarder (such as the codex-rescue agent) when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

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。

Delegate a coding task to the OpenCode CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to OpenCode — phrasings like "have OpenCode do X", "delegate this to OpenCode", "run it through OpenCode", or "use OpenCode to implement/fix/refactor" — or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through OpenCode while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

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。

Delegate a coding task to the Grok Build CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Grok — phrasings like "have Grok do X", "delegate this to Grok", "run it through Grok", "use Grok Build to implement/fix/refactor", or "have grok CLI do this" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Grok while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

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 behavioral standards. Reference during code review to ensure consistent quality checks from a QA 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。

Reviews a design or change for security before it ships — authentication and authorization, data handling, secrets, dependencies, and the secure-development practices around it. Use this to review an architecture or pull request for security, set secure coding standards, choose or tune SAST and DAST tooling, assess a third-party integration, or decide whether a design is safe to build.

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 performance systems that change behavior — expectations, feedback, review cycles, calibration, and handling underperformance. Use this to design or fix a review process, run calibration, write or coach on feedback, address sustained underperformance, or work out why reviews consume weeks and change nothing.

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 and negotiates commercial agreements — MSAs, SOWs, order forms, NDAs, vendor and data-processing agreements — identifying material risk, proposing positions, and recommending a path rather than listing issues. Use this to review a contract before signature, prepare a negotiation position, build fallback positions and approval thresholds, or assess exposure in terms already agreed.

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。

Keep a reviewable decision trail for long-running or unattended work: a TSV log with one row per decision (what, why, evidence, result). Local by default; commit it when a reviewer needs the trail to trust the result. Use for /show-me-your-work, autonomous or multi-phase runs, or work a human reviews after stepping away.

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 "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.

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 code changes for correctness, security, and maintainability. Supports local git diffs (staged or working tree) and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). Use when the user asks to review code, check a PR, audit changes, or wants feedback on code quality before merging.

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 professional peer reviews for papers or theses, providing structured evaluations and improvement suggestions; use when you need a pre-submission assessment, an internal review, or academic quality control.

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。

Orchestrates a systematic review and meta-analysis workflow following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, from protocol development through multi-database search, screening, data extraction, and evidence synthesis. Use when conducting evidence-based reviews, meta-analyses, or scoping revi...

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。

Helps organize reviewer comments and generate a standardized Word (.docx) response letter that maps each change to its exact location (page/paragraph/line). Use when revising a manuscript, replying to peer-review feedback, or preparing internal review responses.

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。

Generates academic reviews for molecules in diseases using PubMed research. Invoke when user needs biomedical literature review with Vancouver citation format.

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。