「rev」の検索結果

Use when generating or editing images with Reve models on Scenario via MCP: text-to-image from a prompt alone, instruction edits (swap poster text, recolor a product, change materials, relight or restyle a scene), merging references with consistent subjects, blending up to 6 images into one composite, or choosing between Reve v2.1 and Reve Remix. Keywords: Reve v2.1, Reve Remix, Reve AI, txt2img, img2img, frame tags, compositing, style blending, text swap.

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 and revise academic papers with a senior-reviewer workflow. Use when an AI research/coding agent needs to work on an existing paper draft, PDF, LaTeX project, Word document, markdown manuscript, rejected paper, or paper idea that already has a concrete direction, and produce: paper maps, weakness audits, insight/novelty checks, reviewer objections, claim-experiment matrices, theory/proof checks, experiment plans, statistics/reproducibility audits, figure/table audits, ethics/compliance checks, revision plans, detailed section edits, or final submission checklists.

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。

Iterative worker-reviewer cycle that spawns a critic subagent to score work 1-10 and provide actionable feedback, then revises until a quality gate is met. Use when implementing features, writing specs, reviewing existing code, or completing any task where quality matters more than speed. Trigger phrases: "use review-loop", "polish this", "iterate on this", "/review-loop", "review with feedback loop".

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 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。

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。

This skill should be used when the user asks to "revise a chapter", "continuity check", "find inconsistencies", "audit character state", "check timeline consistency", "developmental edit", "structural revision", "reverse outline", "cut a subplot", "revision passes", "what pass next", "pacing check" as a revision pass, "clue check", "cut to a word count", or "length pass", or to prepare existing story material for the next revision pass. NOT for planning book structure (use plot-structure), scene-level craft (use scene-craft), voice consistency (use voice-style), or reconciling a chapter drafted by discovery (use discovery-drafting).

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。

B2B 大客户销售 (B2B 大客户销售 / 企业级复杂销售 (Enterprise B2B Sales / Complex Selling) — 面向企业客户的高价值、长周期、多干系人复杂销售的职业认知操作系统，从业者(AE/客户经理/SE 售前/销售负责人 VP Sales/CRO)、想入行者、以及服务这行(销售咨询/enablement/RevOps)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 三大方法论流派之争: **买方主导的诊断式提问 (consultative/discovery-led: SPIN 提问 → 痛点 → 方案, 「像医生先诊断再开方」) ⇄ 卖方主导的教学式挑战 (Challenger: Teach-Tailor-Take control, 用商业洞见 reframe 客户认知, 「像老师挑战客户的既有想法」) ⇄ 资格审查纪律 (MEDDIC/MEDDPICC: 先严格 qualify/disqualify, 「no deal 好过 bad deal」)**; 三派不是非此即彼, 资深人混用, 但底层世界观分歧真实(问 vs 教 vs 筛); 更深层张力 — 「过程/方法论纪律 (process rigor: 预测准确、deal inspection、qualify) ⇄ 关系/信任 (relationship: champion 培养、高管关系、人情)」, 「卖结果/业务价值 (business outcome/ROI、卖给经济决策人) ⇄ 卖产品/功能 (feature selling)」, 「多线程触达买方委员会 (multithreading buying committee) ⇄ 单一 champion 依赖」; (b) 方法论正典 (最标准化、最易蒸出高质量+CLI 化) — MEDDIC/MEDDPICC (Metrics 量化指标/Economic buyer 经济决策人/Decision Criteria 决策标准/Decision Process 决策流程/Identify Pain 痛点/Champion 内部拥护者 + Paper process 签约流程/Competition 竞争), SPIN (Situation/Problem/Implication/Need-payoff 提问序列), Challenger (商业洞见 commercial insight + reframe + 建设性张力 constructive tension + Mobilizer 调动者), Solution Selling (痛点链 pain chain/愿景创建/buying vision), Sandler (前置合约 up-front contract/痛苦漏斗 pain funnel/潜艇七步), Command of the Message (Force Management: 业务价值框架/before-after/decision criteria), Gap Selling (Keenan: 现状 current state → 期望 future state → 差距 the gap/问题中心), Miller Heiman Strategic Selling (蓝表 blue sheet/buying influences: 经济/用户/技术买家 + coach), Value Selling, BANT (老式资格框架, 多被 MEDDIC 取代); (c) 行业结构与角色 — SDR/BDR (开发/约见) → AE/客户经理 (成交) → SE/售前/Solutions Engineer (技术验证/POC/demo) → CSM (客户成功/续约扩张) → Sales Manager/VP Sales/CRO; RevOps (收入运营), Sales Enablement (赋能); land and expand (先落地再扩张)、量化指标 quota/OTE(目标总收入)/配额达成率/pipeline coverage(管道覆盖率 ~3x 业内经验法则)/win rate(赢率)/sales velocity(销售速度)/ramp time(爬坡期)/ACV·ARR·NRR(年合同额/年经常性收入/净收入留存); (d) 销售周期 (the deal/opportunity lifecycle) — prospecting 开发 → discovery 需求挖掘 → qualification 资格审查(MEDDIC) → demo/technical validation/POC 技术验证 → business case/value 业务价值与 ROI → proposal 提案 → negotiation 谈判(procurement 采购/法务/security review) → close 成交 → onboarding/expansion 交付与扩张; 干系人: champion 拥护者 vs coach 线人 vs economic buyer 经济决策人 vs blocker 阻碍者; mutual action plan/close plan(双向行动计划/成交计划); (e) 产出物与节奏 — discovery call(需求电话)、demo、business case、proposal/SOW、MAP(mutual action plan)、forecast(预测: commit/best case/pipeline 类别)、pipeline review/deal review/QBR(季度业务回顾)/account plan(客户计划); (f) 职业/招聘/薪酬 — quota/OTE/comp plan(底薪+提成)/accelerator(加速器)/SPIFF/clawback、ramp、President's Club(顶尖销售俱乐部)、SDR→AE→管理 晋升路径、rep turnover(销售流失率高); (g) 争议/批判 — Challenger 是否过誉(CEB 原始数据被质疑、insight selling 批评)、MEDDIC 沦为填表剧场(box-checking theater, 填字段不真 qualify)、活动指标 vs 质量(spray-and-pray 群发/冷电话存废之争)、AI SDR/自动化淹没收件箱(2024-2025 AI BDR 泡沫 + 邮件送达率崩溃 backlash)、SDR 军团模式是否将死(Winning by Design/signal-based GTM 取代)、配额虚高与销售 burnout、季末打折促单、销售方法论的「宗教化」与培训-认证产业链、最大竞争对手其实是「no decision/维持现状」而非对手; (h) 流派/思想谱系 — 提问诊断派(Rackham SPIN/Bosworth&Eades Solution Selling/Keenan Gap Selling) vs 挑战教学派(Dixon&Adamson Challenger/Force Management Command of the Message) vs 资格纪律派(MEDDIC: Napoli&Dunkel 起源/John McMahon/MEDDICC Andy Whyte) vs 关系战略派(Miller Heiman Strategic/Large Account) vs SaaS 现代收入架构派(Aaron Ross Predictable Revenue/Mark Roberge Sales Acceleration Formula/Jacco van der Kooij Winning by Design bowtie/David Skok 指标) vs 开发-心态派(Jeb Blount Fanatical Prospecting/Sales EQ、Anthony Iannarino、Josh Braun) vs 谈判(Chris Voss Never Split the Difference 战术同理心)。不含: B2C/零售/电商导购销售、纯电话客服/客户支持、纯渠道/分销管理(channel 虽相关但聚焦直销复杂销售)、纯 marketing/需求生成(demand gen 虽上游但本 skill 聚焦销售执行)、纯 CSM 客户成功(虽相关但聚焦 new logo + expansion 的销售动作)。) Master OS — automated mastery of B2B 大客户销售 / 企业级复杂销售 (Enterprise B2B Sales / Complex Selling) — 面向企业客户的高价值、长周期、多干系人复杂销售的职业认知操作系统，从业者(AE/客户经理/SE 售前/销售负责人 VP Sales/CRO)、想入行者、以及服务这行(销售咨询/enablement/RevOps)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 三大方法论流派之争: **买方主导的诊断式提问 (consultative/discovery-led: SPIN 提问 → 痛点 → 方案, 「像医生先诊断再开方」) ⇄ 卖方主导的教学式挑战 (Challenger: Teach-Tailor-Take control, 用商业洞见 reframe 客户认知, 「像老师挑战客户的既有想法」) ⇄

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。

Use when reviewing, debugging, or improving frontend code in this repo (website/ HTML, CSS, JS, service workers, PWA assets) or when asked to "review frontend", "revisa el html/css", "review JS", or "audita el frontend". Reviews for correctness, browser compatibility, accessibility, performance, security (XSS), responsive behavior, and PWA/service-worker correctness, and ends with a "what a user/reviewer would catch" 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。

Use when reviewing, debugging, or giving feedback on Go code in this repo (exercises/part2, website/tools, or any *.go file) or when asked for a "code review", "review this Go", "revisa este código Go", or "crítica de código". Reviews for correctness, idiomatic Go, error handling, resource cleanup, concurrency, performance, and security, and always ends with a test-thinking pass (what a test would catch). For exercises/part2, prefer the go-exercise-reviewer skill which knows the module-mode quirk; this skill covers general Go anywhere in the repo.

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。