「view」の検索結果

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。

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。

Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.

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。

Produces a progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes with code-overview and publishes the resulting overview to a user-specified Confluence location. Use when the user wants code or a PR explained, oriented, or made sense of AND the overview posted to a Confluence space or page. Requires a configured Atlassian MCP server. Does not produce the overview to a local file only — use code-overview. Does not publish an arbitrary existing markdown file — use markdown-to-confluence. Does not document an already-understood feature to Confluence — use project-documentation-to-confluence. Does not root-cause a bug to Confluence — use investigate-to-confluence. Does not plan or specify a new feature to Confluence — use plan-a-feature-to-confluence. Does not publish to Jira — use work-items-to-jira.

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 adding or changing what the rezolus viewer exposes — an /api/v1 endpoint, a dashboard section, the metric catalog, metadata/description derivation, or the frontend data those depend on — or when editing src/viewer/ or crates/viewer/, or reviewing a viewer change. The viewer ships as two separate Rust backends (server + WASM) behind one shared frontend; changing one silently diverges them.

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。

TRIGGER THIS when preparing interviews, planning hiring processes, creating interview questions, building evaluation frameworks, developing interviewer guides, or standardizing interview approaches. Builds complete interview kits with competency-based questions, scorecards, rubrics, interviewer training, and structured evaluation protocols.

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。

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。

Run a user interview — produce an interview guide and synthesize the output into an actionable insight report. Use when asked to "run a user interview", "synthesize these interview notes", "what do users actually want", "build a persona from this feedback", "find the JTBD in these transcripts", or "analyze this interview data".

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。

Dispatch reviews to external companion AIs (Codex, Gemini, Claude) for an independent second opinion on code changes, PR readiness, doc completeness, architecture, or implementation status. Use when you want a fresh-eyes review beyond Claude-native. Trigger on "get a second opinion", "companion review", "review my changes", "review the PR". For Claude-only quality checks use /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。

Claude-native review of code for quality, structure, naming, and maintainability (no external AI). Use when reviewing a file or diff for code quality before committing. Trigger on "review this code", "code review", "is this well-written". For security, use /security-verify; for companion-AI review, use /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。

Performs a lightweight pre-release readiness review of Atlassian Forge apps across manifest/module wiring, architecture, runtime compatibility, dependency posture, tests, deploy readiness, and obvious security, cost, or reliability smells. Use when the user asks "review my Forge app", "pre-deploy check", "is this app ready to ship", "review manifest", "general app review", "release readiness", or asks for a broad quality pass. Do not use for deep security audits/SAST/exploitability review, cost optimization, or diagnosing a known broken app; route those to forge-security-review, forge-cost-optimizer, or forge-debugger respectively.

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 AI Gene Review pull requests and curation changes for GO term quality, evidence support, core function identification, and annotation action justification. Use for PR review comments, review follow-up automation, and QA of gene review YAML.

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 direct five-axis code review across correctness, security, performance, readability, and maintainability. Use when the user asks for `/review`, PR review, security review, pre-merge review, production readiness review, or blocking issue assessment.

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。