「contribution」の検索結果

Interviews a researcher in rounds until an idea, design, or draft has no unexamined decision — numbered questions, each with why it matters and a recommended answer, facts looked up rather than asked, and settled decisions written to a file. Stages are idea (topic or hunch to a falsifiable question and contribution claim), design (estimand, identification, sample and power, measurement, analysis plan, pre-registration, venue), and defend (reviewer objections to a finished design or draft). Use when the user says "grill me", asks to stress-test or poke holes in an idea, design, or plan, asks what they are assuming, or brings an idea that is not yet a design. --plan grills software or process plans.

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。

Builds or audits a literature review, producing an evidence map, the closest prior work, source clusters, a gap verdict, and a synthesis plan for the introduction. Use when the user asks whether a contribution is novel, who has studied a question, what the literature establishes, or how to organize a review, or wants a reading list, Zotero export, or pile of papers turned into one. For systematic reviews or meta-analyses it produces the protocol scaffold and routes registration (PROSPERO or OSF) and screening to dedicated tools.

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。

Builds or audits a literature review: evidence map, closest prior work, gap verdict, and synthesis plan. Use to check whether a contribution is novel, map what a literature establishes, or organize a review; systematic reviews get a protocol scaffold.

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。

Drafts or audits a scientific paper's introduction: real-world motivation, evidence audit, theory-to-if-then funnel with a named estimand, bridges across experiments, and calibrated contributions. Use to write, frame, or critique an introduction.

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 before opening a PR, or whenever asked to self-review a diffusers contribution. Applies the same rubric as the `@claude` CI (checks the diff against references/review-rules.md, traces call paths for dead code). Reports findings grouped by severity, flagging what to fix before submitting (blocking issues + dead code) vs what to leave for the actual review. Report-only — does not edit 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。

Evaluate whether an OSS repo is worth long-term investment before committing time. Assesses project health, governance, community, bus factor, and trajectory. Use when deciding whether to contribute to a specific repo, choosing between multiple repos, or evaluating a project's sustainability. Not for checking if a repo accepts contributions — use oss-find-issue for that.

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 to contribute to an open source repo. Reads all contribution docs, checks eligibility, assesses the user's knowledge gaps, and fills them before coding starts. Use after finding an issue with oss-find-issue, or when starting work on any OSS repo. Not for installing dependencies or getting the build and tests running. Use oss-setup-dev-env for that.

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。

Find actual code issues in a repo that aren't listed in GitHub issues. missing tests, inconsistent patterns, outdated dependencies, documentation gaps. Presents findings to the user for evaluation. Use when you want to make proactive contributions beyond existing issues, or when no good issues are available. Not for browsing the existing issue tracker. Use oss-find-issue for that.

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。

Submit a pull request following the repo's contribution guidelines. Reviews the diff, checks for common rejection reasons, and helps the user write their own PR description. The LLM reviews. the user writes. Use when implementation is complete and tests pass. Not for responding to review comments after the PR is open. Use oss-post-pr for that.

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。

Research an issue deeply and present all context to the user. but the user writes the code. The LLM investigates code paths, finds relevant files, explains patterns, and identifies constraints. The user thinks through the approach and implements it. Use when ready to start working on an issue after oss-prep-to-contribute. Not for writing tests or documentation as a standalone contribution. Use oss-write-tests or oss-write-docs for those.

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。

Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns, and code quality metrics with persistent history and trend tracking. Team-aware: breaks down per-person contributions with praise and growth areas.

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。

Generate changelog for ArchitectKB template contributions

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。

Structures capital call execution with notice preparation, pro-rata allocation, default remedy provisions, and wire coordination. Use when processing capital calls, calculating LP contributions, or managing call logistics.

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。

Deconstructs unit economics with CAC, LTV, payback period, gross margin, and contribution margin analysis. Use when analyzing unit economics, validating SaaS metrics, or assessing business model efficiency.

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。

Evaluates PE sponsor-backed credit with sponsor track record, equity contribution, and governance assessment. Use when analyzing sponsor-backed loans, assessing sponsor quality, or evaluating sponsor support dynamics.

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。

Evaluates GP capital commitment levels with co-invest obligations, management company funding, and alignment assessment. Use when analyzing GP commitment, assessing alignment, or structuring GP capital contributions.

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。

Evaluates bolt-on acquisitions for existing platforms with strategic fit, synergy quantification, and return contribution analysis. Use when screening add-on targets, building platform acquisition strategies, or modeling tuck-in economics.

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, security-first review of a pull request from an EXTERNAL or untrusted contributor — a fork PR, a first-time or unknown author, anyone without write access — before a maintainer merges it. Use this whenever you're reviewing, triaging, or deciding whether to merge a PR opened against tbh-meter by someone outside the maintainer team: 'review PR #123', 'someone opened a PR — is it safe to merge?', 'check this contributor's changes', 'can we take this fork PR?', 'is this contribution legit?'. This is supply-chain DEFENSE, not ordinary code review: every merged PR auto-updates onto every user's machine and ships a memory-reading .exe plus an unsandboxed Electron app, so the author and the PR description are UNTRUSTED and the diff is the only evidence. It posts its verdict as a real GitHub review — an inline comment pinned to each problematic line (via the pulls/reviews API), not just one summary comment. NOT for your own or a fellow maintainer's branch (use self-review for that), and prefer this over the generic review flow for anything coming from outside the team.

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。

Contribute to OpenClaw ecosystem projects (OpenClaw, NemoClaw, NanoClaw) through a structured 9-step workflow: target verification, codebase exploration, parallel audit, finding cross-reference, and pull request creation. Emphasizes false positive prevention and project convention adherence.

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 the user asks "where to help", "contribution opportunities", or "find a good first issue". Returns data-backed first steps. Not for PR review queues: use gh-review-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 maintainer or collaborator explicitly asks to review and land one external pull request. Don't use for internal pull requests or landing without preserving contributor authorship.

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。

Select at most one eligible Proto UI work item and return a read-only proposal without changing GitHub or repository state. Use after pui-orient when requested contribution work is not yet bounded, or when a user asks what ready task fits the current capability and permission envelope. Do not post a claim, assign anyone, decide readiness, or invent 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。

Weekly engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns, and code quality metrics with persistent history and trend tracking. Team-aware: breaks down per-person contributions with praise and growth areas. Use when asked to "weekly retro", "what did we ship", or "engineering retrospective".

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。

30/60/90 Day Onboarding Plan — Day 1 setup, week 1 ramp, month 1 milestones, month 2 contributions, month 3 evaluation criteria

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。