「review」の検索結果

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。

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 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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

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。

Simulate structured grant peer review for biomedical proposals; use when stress-testing significance, innovation, approach, feasibility, and reviewer-facing weaknesses before submission.

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。

Write comprehensive literature reviews for medical imaging AI research. Use when writing survey papers, systematic reviews, or literature analyses on topics like segmentation, detection, classification in CT, MRI, X-ray, ultrasound, or pathology imaging. Triggers on requests f...

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。

A multi-stage workflow for writing long-form medical reviews; used when the user needs to build an outline based on PubMed literature, write chapter by chapter, perform supplementary searches, and format citations; input is the review topic and project directory, output is a c...

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 actionable GitHub pull request review comments for xquic. Use when asked to handle PR review feedback, requested changes, unresolved inline threads, or reviewer comments while preserving unrelated edits.

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。

Fail closed on published draft XQUIC code pull requests before ready-for-review state. Use when asked to pre-review a code PR or move it out of draft; verify current base-to-head code, protocol conformance, validation coverage, adversarial bad cases, hot-path performance, and memory safety in a five-part local report.

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 UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", "review UX", or "check my site against best practices".

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。

Findings-first code review workflow for AI coding agents. Use when the user asks to review uncommitted changes, commits in a date range, or a branch compared to the main branch / PR-style diff. Focuses on bugs, regressions, correctness risks, missing tests, security/data-safety issues, and other behavior-changing defects.

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。

Methodology for clause-by-clause review of a contract against a structured deviation policy ("playbook"). Covers how to walk a playbook, locate the matching provision in the contract, apply rule types (max-value, must-be-present, must-be-absent, acceptable-set, must-have-feature), classify the result (ok / risk / reject), choose the prescribed action, and ground each finding in a verbatim excerpt. Use whenever reviewing any contract — NDA, MSA, vendor DD questionnaire, lease, DPA — against a structured rules-based playbook.

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。

Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.

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 plan review by 3 independent reviewers (Feasibility, Completeness, Scope & Alignment) before presenting to user.

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。