「correctness」の検索結果

Use this when writing, reviewing, or modifying SQL queries — including SELECT, CTEs, joins, aggregations, window functions, and validating query correctness or performance.

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 focused exclusively on over-engineering. Finds what to delete: reinvented standard library, unneeded dependencies, speculative abstractions, dead flexibility. One line per finding: location, what to cut, what replaces it. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "is this over-engineered", "simplify review", or invokes /ponytail-review. Complements correctness-focused review, this one only hunts complexity.

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。

Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production auth, security-sensitive logic, a high-stakes migration, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now than to debug later.

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。

Grounds every implementation decision in official documentation. Use when you want to verify an approach against the official docs before implementing it, or when you want authoritative, source-cited code free from outdated patterns. Use when building with any framework or library where correctness matters.

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 Rust FFI code for type safety, memory layout compatibility, string handling, callback patterns, and unsafe boundary correctness. Use when reviewing extern blocks, #[repr(C)] types, bindgen output, or code calling C/C++ libraries.

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 iOS animation code for correctness, performance, accessibility, and Apple API best practices. Use when reviewing .swift files containing animation code — withAnimation, .animation(), PhaseAnimator, KeyframeAnimator, matchedGeometryEffect, navigationTransition, CABasicAnimation, CASpringAnimation, UIViewPropertyAnimator, UIDynamicAnimator, symbolEffect, scrollTransition, contentTransition, or custom Transition conformances.

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 Elixir documentation for completeness, quality, and ExDoc best practices. Use when auditing @moduledoc, @doc, @spec coverage, doctest correctness, and cross-reference usage in .ex 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。

Audit feature engineering code for leakage, quality issues, and pipeline correctness. Use when asked to "audit our feature pipeline", "is there data leakage", or "find feature quality issues".

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。

Expert guide for multi-pass autonomous AI code self-review — syntax validation, logic correctness, architectural conformance, security audit, and performance analysis without external tooling — enabling the agent to catch its own errors before presenting code / Panduan ahli review kode otonom multi-pass oleh AI — validasi sintaks, kebenaran logika, konformitas arsitektur, audit keamanan, dan analisis performa tanpa tooling eksternal — memungkinkan agen menangkap errornya sendiri sebelum menampilkan kode.

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。

Investigate performance bottlenecks and validate optimizations without weakening retrieval quality or correctness.

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 this skill to review code. It supports both local changes (staged or working tree) and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). It focuses on correctness, maintainability, and adherence to project 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。

Use when building or debugging Typer/Rich CLI applications. Activates on Rich table rendering, console output in non-TTY environments, CliRunner testing with Rich output, snapshot testing, Typer command wiring, exception chain prevention with AppExit/AppExitRich patterns, table width at 80-column wrapping, Progress/Live in non-interactive contexts, stderr/stdout separation, or force_terminal vs width configuration. Grounds AI-generated CLI code in verified correctness patterns and prevents known Typer/Rich integration mistakes.

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。

Audit agent lifecycle — validates agent execution capability against configuration. Accepts plugin path, runs 8 semantic audits (capability vs config alignment, skill loading correctness, inter-agent contracts, prompt contradictions, tool sufficiency, dead agents, scriptable patterns, pattern learning), writes reports to .plugin-creator/audits/. Use when auditing agent lifecycle, checking agent capabilities, verifying tool access, finding dead agents, validating agent contract alignment, or confirming agents can execute workflows.

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 code change for correctness-maintainability defects not owned by a narrower security/performance/accessibility perspective. Use for an independent quality perspective on a defined change set.

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 CLI application code for correctness and quality. Use when reviewing tools that use argparse, click, typer, commander.js, or similar argument parsers — covers exit codes, help flags, stdin/stdout/stderr separation, non-interactive operation, signal handling, argument validation, ANSI color safety, and dry-run support for destructive operations.

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 documentation for quality, clarity, SEO, and technical correctness. Optimized for Docus/Nuxt Content but works with any Markdown documentation. Use when asked to: "review docs", "check documentation", "audit docs", "validate documentation", "improve docs quality", "analyze documentation", "check my docs", "review my documentation pages", "validate MDC syntax", "check for SEO issues", "analyze doc structure". Provides actionable recommendations categorized by priority (Critical, Important, Nice-to-have).

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。

Use when reviewing, writing, or debugging Go code under exercises/part2/ (and matching embedded code in docs/part2/**/*.mdx). Thinks hard about correctness, idiomatic Go, error handling, resource cleanup, concurrency, and — crucially — what the tests would catch: edge cases, races, leaks, timeouts, and port conflicts. Knows the repo's module-mode quirk (GO111MODULE=off) and which dirs carry go.mod.

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。

Validate and improve GitHub Well-Architected Framework (WAF) documentation under the content/ folder for architectural correctness, decision quality, explicit trade-offs, and actionable guidance. Use this when reviewing pull requests, markdown files, or draft content in content/ to ensure recommendations are technically sound, context-aware, and guide readers toward correct architecture and design decisions.

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 Odoo addon code for correctness, security, performance, migrations, tests, and official Odoo coding guidelines. Use when reviewing Odoo modules, diffs, pull requests, or changed files involving models, fields, XML views, data, controllers, reports, OWL/assets, manifests, access rules, record rules, or OCA migrations.

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 only when the user explicitly asks to fix and verify a validated or plausible security vulnerability. Do not use for ordinary bug fixes, correctness or design review findings, general validation, or full PR, commit, branch, patch, or repository scans.

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。

Interactive code simulation engine that spawns ghost personas to review your code before it ships. Each ghost walks through your code line-by-line from a different failure perspective: The Adversary (race conditions, double-submit, idempotency), The Enterprise Edge (business logic gaps, multi-currency, B2B tax exemptions, locale), Chaos Monkey (timeouts, partial failures, network partitions, OOM). Produces a chaos timeline, structured bug report with severity ratings, and three resolution tiers (quick fix, robust architecture, generated test suite). Use this skill whenever the user mentions code review, PR review, "find bugs", "what could go wrong", "will this break", "is this safe", "stress test", "edge cases", design review, pre-merge check, dry run, chaos test, or wants a second opinion on any code — even if they don't explicitly ask for "ghost personas" or "simulation". Also trigger when someone pastes a code snippet with any question about its correctness or safety.

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 code implementations for correctness, security, maintainability with confidence-scored findings (converted from 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。

Verify a competitive programming or LeetCode solution for correctness, edge cases, and performance. Use when asked to "verify my solution", "check my code", "is this solution correct", "test my solution", "review my competitive programming answer", "validate my algorithm", or any solution verification request.

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。