476 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Confirm a change before merge. `/check verify` drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). `/check review` runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never edits 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。
Turn product requirements into scoped tasks with dependencies and acceptance criteria. Use for implementation planning and prioritization.
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。
Freshly judge whether a finished change and its claims meet original acceptance: PASS, FAIL or NOT_PROVEN. Use when: asked for a go/no-go, sign-off or independent verdict.
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。
Give advisory feedback on a plan, design or code change. Use when: asked for an opinion or a look-over, even informally. Not for acceptance; use Validate.
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。
Quality gate: verify each acceptance criterion of a completed task/work unit, run quality checks, and create follow-up tasks for gaps. Use before merging or to audit delivered work. Invoked as /agiflow:review-work <work-unit-or-task>. Uses get_work_unit, get_task, update_task, create_task, create_task_comment.
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。
Refine an existing Agiflow task into an unambiguous, testable specification without expanding its intended outcome. Use when a task is vague, lacks acceptance criteria, has unclear scope or dependencies, or is not ready for backlog grooming.
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。
Execute a single Todo task through In Progress to Review, meeting every acceptance criterion with tests and vibe-lint checks. Refuses Planning-status tasks. Invoked as /agiflow:run-task <task>. Uses get_task, update_task, create_task_comment.
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 a large, multi-session goal (e.g. shipping a whole side product) through the full V-model closed loop, one phase at a time, with cross-session state and a final north-star acceptance gate. Ultragoals never downgrade the lane: every phase runs CP-1→CP-6 with adversarial verification. Opt-in: invoke with /ultragoal or by calling something a long-running goal. Ordinary work does not run this.
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 one task through the V-model verification loop: CP-2 plan → CP-3 build → CP-3v component verify → CP-4 integration verify (full lane) → CP-5 acceptance. The worker never grades its own homework; evidence rows trace back to AC-n. Opt-in: invoke with /closed-loop or by asking for the closed loop, proper verification, or an evidence trail. Ordinary work does not run this.
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 packaging AISTATS code, data, proofs, simulation scripts, notebooks, random seeds, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or public post-acceptance artifacts, even when there is no separate artifact badge. Covers what statistically minded AISTATS reviewers inspect first and how to make Monte Carlo studies turnkey.
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 packaging code, datasets, prompts, model outputs, or annotation materials for an ACL submission under ACL Rolling Review, covering anonymized supplement archives, scientific-artifact items of the Responsible NLP checklist, licensing and intended-use documentation, data statements, and post-acceptance public release.
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 drafting an AAMAS rebuttal to preliminary OpenReview reviews, covering the double-blind constraint, the no-new-results and no-revised-paper norms, how to answer game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewers at once, and how to give the area chair a clean acceptance rationale within a short response window.
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 packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory and MARL reviewers can inspect and re-run the interaction claims.
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。
Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.
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 building the novel integrative framework that an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review must deliver — the theory-advancing "new way of seeing the field" that is the acceptance bar, not a catalog of papers. Designs the spine; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or appraise evidence balance (amann-evidence-standards).
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。
ATAC-seq library quality control -- TSS enrichment, FRiP, fragment-size periodicity, library complexity (NRF/PBC1/PBC2), mitochondrial fraction, and ENCODE 4 thresholds. Use when assessing whether an ATAC-seq library passes ENCODE acceptance criteria, diagnosing transposition artefacts, comparing Omni-ATAC vs standard prep quality, or selecting which replicates to drop before peak calling.
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 writing MATLAB functions with arguments blocks — repeating arguments (arguments (Repeating)), .?ClassName property import in constructors, name-value forwarding with namedargs2cell, or migrating from inputParser or validateattributes. Also when reviewing signatures for implicit-conversion pitfalls (size reshaping, class coercion, computed defaults), or when restricting, constraining, or validating function inputs — scalar vs vector enforcement, type rejection, size checking. Also when asked to harden inputs, make a function more robust, tighten input checking, or rewrite for safer input acceptance — even without "validation" or "arguments block" wording. Triggers on: arguments block, mustBe validators, name-value arguments, varargin, inputParser, nargin/narginchk, restrict input, type checking, scalar constraint, harden inputs, defensive programming. Not for: App Designer callbacks, Simulink mask parameters, class inheritance, or runtime validation outside function or property declarations.
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 medium-to-large changes need explicit requirements, technical design, and task planning before implementation, especially for multi-module work, unclear acceptance criteria, or architecture-heavy 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。
Use when a Scenario output must be checked and improved rather than accepted first roll: iterating a generation until it matches the brief, fixing a batch that came back off-brief, retrying failed shots methodically, wiring an automated generate, review, revise loop, or deciding whether to re-prompt, swap references, inpaint, post-process, or change model. Keywords: refine, iterate, critique, review loop, QA, self-correction, verify, acceptance criteria, retry, drift.
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 a sponsor update separating promised outcomes, measured results and customer acceptance. Use for progress readouts or defending a delivery claim.
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。
Exercise the delivered customer journey using real runtime or browser evidence. Use for functional acceptance testing after implementation, including failure paths.
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。
Sequence an understood outcome into verifiable delivery slices with dependencies, ownership and acceptance checks. Use for delivery planning, estimation or migration strategy.
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。
Translate ideas, feature requests, or vague concepts into specific, actionable dev briefs. Use this skill whenever the user has an idea they want to build, a feature to spec out, a bug to file, a project to scope, or needs to convert a half-formed idea into a clear implementation brief. Triggers on I want to add, we should build, can we make, what is the plan for, how do we implement, dev brief, feature spec, PRD, user story, acceptance criteria, scope this, prioritize. Also triggers when the user has a list of things they want to build and needs help converting them into well-formed tasks.
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。