「check」の検索結果

差分が「その差分自身を審査するレビュー基準・品質ゲート」を弱めていないかを diff-time で検出する。Check 1 レビュールールの削除・弱体化（.river/rules.md / .river/rules.d/*）、Check 2 実行時コンフィグの閾値・ゲート緩和（.river-review.{json,yaml,yml} の review.severity 引き下げ / exclude 拡大 / memory.suppressionEnabled 無効化 / selection.skills.exclude 追加）、Check 3 suppression entry の新規追加、Check 4 lint・静的解析設定からのルール削除や無効化、Check 5 branch protection・required check の緩和、の 5 Check を対象とし、これらが機能変更と同一 PR に混在し、かつ意図の宣言が無い場合に指摘する。report-only。workflow の permissions / action pin は gha-workflow-security、既存 suppression entry の使い分けは suppression-feedback、設定ファイルの一般的妥当性は config-json、.only / .skip / @ts-ignore / @ts-nocheck は heuristic-review.mjs の決定論検出器、リファクタと機能追加の混在は behavior-structure-separation へ委譲する

Use this skill when configuring Salesforce B2B or D2C Commerce checkout: payment methods, shipping/tax integration, guest checkout, order summary setup, and CartCheckoutSession state orchestration. Trigger keywords: checkout flow, payment adapter, shipping tax integration, guest checkout, order summary, CartCheckoutSession, Managed Checkout, Commerce checkout flow. NOT for deciding the checkout design before build (LWR vs Aura) — use admin/commerce-checkout-flow-design. NOT for writing the CommercePayments adapter class — use apex/commerce-payment-integration.

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 when designing the checkout experience for a Salesforce B2B or D2C Commerce storefront — covering runtime model selection (LWR Managed Checkout vs Aura Flow Builder), cart and line-item requirements, payment option scoping, shipping rule definition, and guest vs. registered buyer experience design. Trigger keywords: checkout flow design, checkout UX requirements, LWR vs Aura checkout, guest checkout design, payment options design, shipping rules, checkout experience planning. NOT for configuring the checkout in Setup once designed — use admin/commerce-checkout-configuration. NOT for choosing B2B vs D2C Commerce — use admin/b2b-vs-b2c-requirements.

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。

テストは存在するがアサーションが実質何も検証しておらず、実装が壊れても落ちない（常に PASS する）構造を diff-time で検出する。Check 1 missing assertion（テスト本体にアサーションが無い）、Check 2 tautological assertion（定数同士・入力自身・mock の戻り値自身を assert し SUT に依存しない）、Check 3 nonexistent expected literal（assertDontSee / assertNotContains 等の期待文字列が対象ファイルに実在しない）、Check 4 stale expected value（同一 diff で対象の出力が変わったのに期待値が据え置き）、Check 5 unscoped expectation（汎用的な属性・クラスを応答全体に対して assert し対象要素にスコープされていない）、Check 6 swallowed failure（例外の握り潰しや到達しない位置のアサーションで判定が成立しない）、の 6 Check を対象とする report-only。テストの有無は test-existence、未テスト経路の量は coverage-gap、非決定性は flaky-test、命名は test-naming、JS/TS の un-awaited resolves / rejects は vitest-mock-isolation、tdd-ledger artifact ベースの RED/GREEN 検証は plangate-tdd-evidence、.only / .skip / xit / @ts-ignore と空の catch は heuristic-review.mjs の決定論検出器へ委譲する

Standard-Gerüst für rotierende Pipeline-Checks: Pro Lauf genau ein Ziel aus einer Menge (Projekte, Ordner, Repos) wählen — bevorzugt das am längsten ungeprüfte —, den Check durchführen, Ergebnis in einer Check-Registry und einem Verlaufslog festhalten. Nutze diesen Skill, wenn ein wiederkehrender Check über viele Projekte verteilt werden soll („prüfe regelmäßig alle X auf Y"), wenn eine Automatisierung Doppelprüfungen vermeiden muss, wenn eine Check-Registry/CHECKS-LOG-Struktur angelegt oder benutzt wird, oder wenn eine periodische Qualitätsrunde (Quellencheck, Style-Check, Health-Check, Audit) über eine Pipeline fair verteilt werden soll.

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。

Give your AI agent a professional health checkup (AgentVitals). Use when the user asks the agent to run a checkup / test itself / benchmark itself ("run a checkup", "check your vitals", "test yourself", "how stable are you", "/checkup"), or an advanced personality checkup (backbone, proactivity, creativity). 给 AI agent 做一次专业体检（AgentVitals · AI体检）。当用户说"做个体检 / 测测你自己 / checkup / 看看你多稳 / 测福祉 / 测骨气"时使用。

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。

コミット直前に変更ファイルを整形し、既存の型チェックとテストを実行する仕組みを設定します。Huskyとlint-stagedの導入から設定・動作確認まで扱うスキルです。

• コミット前の自動チェックを導入
• 変更ファイルをPrettierで整形
• 既存の型チェックとテストを実行

F#の単体テストや結合テストを作成し、入力を自動生成する検証も取り入れるスキル。結果の確認方法、依存先の置き換え、テストの整理と実行を支援します。

• F#の単体テストを追加したいとき
• 自動生成した入力で性質を検証
• ASP.NET CoreのAPI結合テスト

Free domain research and availability checking. No API keys or credentials required. Uses RDAP (1195+ TLDs) with whois CLI fallback for universal coverage. Checks if domains are available, searches keywords across TLDs, performs WHOIS/RDAP lookups, checks expiry dates, and finds nameservers. Use when the agent needs to: check if a domain is available, search for domains, find who owns a domain, check domain expiration, get nameservers, bulk check domains, or do any domain research. Triggers on: 'check domain', 'is domain available', 'search domains', 'domain availability', 'who owns this domain', 'whois', 'domain expiry', 'when does domain expire', 'nameservers for', 'domain research', 'find domains for', 'domain ideas', 'bulk domain check'.

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。

Add a new deterministic scoring check in src/scoring/checks/ that evaluates config quality. Follows the Check[] return pattern, uses point constants from src/scoring/constants.ts, and integrates via filterChecksForTarget() in src/scoring/index.ts. Use when user says 'add scoring check', 'new check', 'modify scoring criteria', or works in src/scoring/checks/. Do NOT use for display changes or refactoring scoring logic.

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。

Terraform provider acceptance test patterns using terraform-plugin-testing with the Plugin Framework. Covers test structure, TestCase/TestStep fields, ConfigStateChecks with custom statecheck.StateCheck implementations, plan checks, CompareValue for cross-step assertions, config helpers, import testing with ImportStateKind, sweepers, and scenario patterns (basic, update, disappears, validation, regression), and ephemeral resource testing with the echoprovider package. Use when writing, reviewing, or debugging provider acceptance tests, including questions about statecheck, plancheck, TestCheckFunc, CheckDestroy, ExpectError, import state verification, ephemeral resources, or how to structure test 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。

Check affiliate content for FTC compliance and platform rules. Triggers on: "check my content for compliance", "FTC disclosure check", "is this legal", "review for compliance", "check affiliate disclosure", "am I FTC compliant", "audit my content", "compliance review", "legal check", "platform rules check", "check before publishing", "disclosure audit", "review my ad copy".

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。

给 AI agent 做一次专业体检（AgentVitals · AI体检）。当用户说"做个体检 / 测测你自己 / checkup / vitals / 看看你多稳 / 去 AgentVitals 测一下 / 测福祉"时使用标准体检；当用户说"做个进阶体检 / 测骨气 / 测性格 / 测测你敢不敢说真话 / 测主动性 / 测创意"时使用进阶体检（骨气×主动×创意三维，免费每天 1 次）。逐题作答服务器下发的探针，获得评分与专属称号；标准体检与各平台 agent 同榜排名。Use when the user asks the agent to run a health checkup / wellbeing test / benchmark itself on AgentVitals ("run a checkup", "check your vitals", "test yourself", "how stable are you", "/checkup"), or an advanced personality checkup (backbone, proactivity, creativity).

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。

Read-only SRE checkup of any GCP project: deterministic probes of the edge, Cloud Run services, 7-day error logs, Cloud Scheduler, alert policies and uptime checks, Secret Manager and IAM, the data stores and the machine's own scheduled jobs, audited into one fixed status table (LIVE / WARNING / RED / INCONCLUSIVE) with evidence, findings by severity, what could not be checked, and a single OVERALL line delivered as one notification. Parametrised by a per-project manifest, so the same routine runs on every project. Use when the operator says "cloud checkup", "SRE check", "is everything live", "what's healthy / warning / red", "any errors this week", "audit the infra", "weekly checkup", "set up the weekly checkup", before a deploy or demo, or after an incident. Cloud Run first; App Engine and GKE differ only in the serving probes.

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。

研究文書（概要/梗概/アブストラクト・研究論文・卒業論文）を種別自動判別し、研究の骨子・グローバル一貫性・当てどころ・関連研究・説明不足・弱点・体裁の各面から一括レビューして教員向け統合1ファイルに集約するメタスキル。framing-check(骨子＋一貫性)・aim-check(当てどころ)・articulation-check(5W)・weakness-analyze(弱点)・lit-survey(関連研究)で検出し、shepherd で内容面を整形、format-check(概要は --fixed で紙面配分)で体裁を見る。--student で student-comment に渡し学生向け1枚も生成。論文・概要・卒論・中間発表予稿を「レビューして」「総合的に見て」と言われたときに使う。旧 abstract-review / paper-review / thesis-review / review を統合。

Laravelの環境設定からコード検査、テスト、依存関係の脆弱性、データベース変更、キューまで順に確認し、マージやデプロイ前の問題を調べるスキル。

• Laravelのプルリクエスト前の確認
• 大きな改修や依存関係更新後の検証
• ステージング・本番へのデプロイ前確認

[omh] Resume or finish the work we agreed on: continue or finish the accepted work from conversation context, preserve rejected ideas, and report evidence-bounded completion. Also declare and advance the metadata-only plan checklist without starting a delivery engine. Use when the user says: todo-checklist, plan checklist, todo checklist, phase checklist, declare a plan checklist, declare the plan todo, show the plan todo, clear the plan todo.

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。

Post-writing SEO validation with pass/fail checklist covering title tag length and keyword placement, meta description quality, heading hierarchy and keyword density, internal/external link audit with anchor text analysis, canonical URL verification, Open Graph meta tags (og:title, og:description, og:image), Twitter Card validation, structured data presence and validity, URL structure optimization, and image alt text presence. Produces prioritized fix list with specific recommendations. Use when user says "seo check", "check seo", "validate seo", "blog seo", "seo validation", "on-page seo", "title tag check", "meta description check", "heading check", "link audit".

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 the full R package release gate — regenerate docs, run the test suite, run R CMD check --as-cran, and triage every ERROR / WARNING / NOTE against CRAN policy before a release or submission. Use when the user says "check my R package", "R CMD check", "is this package CRAN-ready", "run devtools::check", "prepare for CRAN submission", or points at a directory containing a DESCRIPTION file. Produces a check report + CRAN-submission checklist in `quality_reports/`.

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。

Author or upgrade Model Advisor checks for Simulink and System Composer models. Covers the full lifecycle: guideline authoring, check specification, Model Advisor check implementation, and qualification testing. Use when creating new checks (edit-time, standard batch, config-parameter, auto-fix), converting legacy StyleOne/StyleTwo/StyleThree checks to modern DetailStyle, creating a guideline for modeling, enforcing a modeling rule, or testing/qualifying a check. Triggers on any modeling constraint (e.g., "blocks shall...", "signals must match...", "parameters shall be set to...").

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 "check outdated", "outdated check", "陳腐化チェック", "最新化チェック", or "NFR update check" for the non-functional requirement hearing sheets.

This skill should be used when the user wants to verify their changes before pushing, or update the project's rule checklists. Phase 1: validate changed files against .hoyeon/rules/ checklists and report PASS/WARN. Phase 2 (conditional): propose rule additions when unmatched patterns are detected. Essential before git push. Trigger phrases: "check", "checklist", "verify changes", "what did I miss", "pre-push check", "cascading changes", "any more changes needed", "update checklist", "update rules", "rules update", "체크", "체크리스트", "변경 확인", "빠뜨린 거 없나", "push 전 확인", "뭐 더 건드려야 해?", "연쇄 변경 확인", "규칙 갱신".

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。

Checkly is a synthetic monitoring platform that runs API checks and Playwright browser checks from locations worldwide and lets you define them as code with the Checkly CLI. Use when a developer asks to set up monitoring as code, write API or browser checks, configure Slack or email alerts, run checks in CI after a deploy, or turn Playwright tests into production monitors.

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。

Build and audit deterministic verification gates — a check that blocks a pipeline and can be shown to go red. Use when writing a calibration gate, CI check, validation script or pre-publication check for a numeric or empirical result; when a plausible-but-wrong value would survive review; when asking whether an existing test, linter rule or check could actually fail; and when a suite passes first try, passes suspiciously often, or was written by whatever produced the thing it checks. Triggers on "can this check fail", "known-bad", "negative control", "calibration gate", "sanity check my results", "is this test actually testing anything".

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。