「human review」の検索結果

Drive a GitHub Copilot (or any bot reviewer) pull-request review to a clean pass without babysitting it: fix each finding in its own commit, reply to the review thread with the fix sha, resolve the thread, re-request the bot, and poll for the async re-review. Covers the thread node-id (PRRT_...) vs comment databaseId distinction, the resolveReviewThread GraphQL mutation, the copilot-pull-request-reviewer[bot] slug, and how to read the bot's verdict (COMMENTED plus a "human review recommended" banner is not a blocking finding). Use when Copilot has left review comments on your PR, when bot review threads must be closed out with an auditable fix-reply-resolve trail before merge, or when you need to verify that a re-review actually landed on the new HEAD rather than the old one.

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 resolve PR review comments on the current branch's PR in this Flutter repository, from both AI reviewers (CodeRabbit, CodiumAI, CodePilot, Copilot, etc.) and human reviewers. Fetches comments via `gh`, splits them into AI and human groups, verifies each comment against the actual Flutter code, triages them, proposes fixes, and optionally applies fixes, replies to comments, and pushes. Use when the user asks to review PR comments, resolve PR feedback, review AI comments, review human review comments, or handle code review feedback.

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。

Designs human-in-the-loop review points for DAG workflows. Determines what to present to the human, how to collect feedback, and how to route approve/reject/modify decisions back into the DAG. Use when adding approval gates, designing review UX, or handling human feedback in agent workflows. Activate on "human review", "approval gate", "human-in-the-loop", "human gate", "approval workflow", "user review step". NOT for executing human gates at runtime (use dag-runtime with Temporal signals), general UX design, or chatbot conversation design.

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。

Sweeps a SharePoint library listing (an export or a listing the agent can reach, with file name, link, review-date column and owner column) for documents past their review date and returns a dated DRAFT review sweep report (Overdue, Due soon, No review date, Summary) plus one ready-to-paste reminder per document owner for the user to send. Never changes metadata, sends a message or invents a document, date or owner. Use when the user asks to "find the documents past their review date", "run the review sweep on the policies library", "which documents are overdue for review", "audit the review dates in this library export" or "draft reminders to owners about stale documents". Do not use for duplicate, conflict and ownership checks across knowledge files, use knowledge-base-hygiene-review instead; for gaps in an engineering deliverables register, use master-document-register-check. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

GitHub pull request review desk (Busabase App-in-Skill) using the gh CLI for real GitHub access, an AirApp review UI for human approval, and a trusted gh pr review execution step. Use when the user invokes /kelly-pr-review or $kelly-pr-review, asks to review GitHub PRs, generate a PR review batch, approve/comment/request changes through the review UI, or execute approved GitHub reviews.

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。

Converts a markdown PR writeup or code review (one with ```diff fenced blocks and severity-tagged > [!BLOCKER]/[!MAJOR]/[!MINOR]/[!NIT] callouts) into a single-file 2-column HTML review — unified-diff on the left, severity-tagged annotation cards on the right, top jump-nav listing every finding, mandatory named reviewer footer. Triggers when the markdown-html-orchestrator classifies an input as REVIEW, or when invoked directly via /cs:md-review. Refuses without explicit --reviewer (a code review must name a human), refuses if no diff hunks present (route to md-document instead), and refuses to encode severity in color only (every badge ships color + icon + aria-label per WCAG 1.4.1). Use after orchestrator routing.

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 proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Research Coordinator v12.0 - Human-Centered Edition (Systematic Review Automation) Context-persistent platform with 24 specialized agents across 9 categories (A-G, I, X). Features: Human Checkpoints First, VS Methodology, Paradigm Detection, Systematic Review Automation. Supports quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods research, and systematic review automation. Language: English. Responds in Korean when user input is Korean. Triggers: research question, theoretical framework, hypothesis, literature review, meta-analysis, effect size, IRB, PRISMA, statistical analysis, sample size, bias, journal, peer review, conceptual framework, visualization, systematic review, qualitative, phenomenology, grounded theory, thematic analysis, mixed methods, interview, focus group, ethnography, action research, paper retrieval, AI screening, RAG builder, humanization, AI pattern detection

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 in the human side of code review. Covers giving feedback that lands, receiving criticism gracefully, navigating disagreements, and building a healthy review culture. Understands that code review is as much about relationships as it is about code quality. Use when "code review, PR feedback, review comments, how to give feedback, harsh review, review culture, constructive criticism, " 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。

Conducts multi-axis code review across correctness, readability, architecture, security, and performance. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Triggers on "review my PR", "review this diff", "code review", "review this changeset", "is this ready to merge", "pre-merge 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Financial Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, finance risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CFO review", "pressure-test the numbers in this business case", "what would a CFO say about this", "challenge the payback and run costs" or "prepare this for the investment committee". Do not use for delivery or capacity questions, use coo-reviewer instead; for architecture or vendor questions, use cto-reviewer; for positioning or demand, use cmo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as an Investor archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict whose conditions read as terms, findings that cite the exact passage, capital-allocation risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run an investor review", "what would an investor say about this", "pressure-test the capital case" or "prepare me for the investment committee". Do not use for internal budget, cost or finance-function review, use cfo-reviewer instead; for revenue forecast and pipeline, use cro-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, pricing plan, go-to-market plan or forecast in character as a Chief Revenue Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to exact passages, revenue risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CRO review", "pressure-test the revenue plan", "what would sales leadership say about this" or "challenge this forecast". Do not use for partnership, deal-structure or market-positioning reviews, use cbo-reviewer instead; for the finance seat use cfo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or vendor contract in character as a Head of Procurement archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, commercial risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "review this from a procurement angle", "what would procurement say about this proposal", "pressure-test this vendor contract commercially", "find the holes before the sourcing committee" or "check the renewal terms like a Head of Procurement would". Do not use for liability, IP, regulatory or signing-authority questions, use general-counsel-reviewer instead; for whether the spend fits the budget, use cfo-reviewer; for vendor security, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Customer Advocate archetype, the seat for paying customers not in the room, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, customer-side risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a customer advocate review", "do a voice-of-the-customer pressure-test", "what would our customers say about this" or "what does this plan really ask of paying customers". Do not use for the product evidence or roadmap case, use cpo-reviewer instead; for revenue or pricing strategy, use cro-reviewer; for the staff who operate the change, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or product plan in character as a Chief Product Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, product and adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CPO review", "pressure-test this product plan", "what would a CPO say about this", "challenge the user evidence" or "check the roadmap opportunity cost". Do not use for positioning, messaging or launch marketing, use cmo-reviewer instead; for internal staff adoption of a rollout, use frontline-skeptic-reviewer; for what a change asks of paying customers, use customer-advocate-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。

公開前の文章やコードを二つの独立したエージェントが同じ基準で審査し、両方の合格まで修正と再審査を繰り返し、上限を超えたら人へ判断を引き継ぐスキル。

• 公開前に文章の事実関係を確認したいとき
• 顧客向け文章とブランドルールの照合
• 本番配布前に独立した審査を加えたいとき

Evaluate performance fairly when output is AI-assisted — what still measures the human, what now measures the tooling, and how to run the review conversation. Use when reviewing someone whose work is heavily AI-assisted, when output volume stopped meaning anything, when calibrating a team with uneven AI adoption, or when writing review criteria for the AI era. Produces review guidance: a what-measures-whom analysis, rewritten criteria, calibration rules for mixed-adoption teams, and conversation scripts. For the general review document use performance-review; for redesigning the role itself use role-redesign-for-ai.

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-authored code for its characteristic failure modes — plausible-but-wrong logic, hallucinated APIs, over-engineering, dead scaffolding, and silent security shortcuts. Use when reviewing an AI-generated or heavily AI-assisted PR, when AI-written code keeps shipping subtle bugs, or when setting review standards for a team using coding agents. Produces a focused review with AI-specific findings, verification steps per risk class, and a team checklist for AI-authored changes. For general PR review use code-review-checklist — this skill covers what that one assumes a human wouldn't do.

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。

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。

Drafts a DRAFT self-assessment, peer feedback note or manager review narrative from the evidence the writer supplies (goals, examples, metrics, notes), in the review template where given: every sentence tied to a numbered evidence item, unsupported claims removed and logged, and a gaps list to complete before submitting. Never assigns, suggests or implies a rating, score, ranking, pay or promotion outcome. Use when the user asks to "write my self-assessment", "draft peer feedback for a colleague", "turn these notes into a performance review", "help me write the year-end review for my report", "summarise my achievements against my goals" or "draft the mid-year review". Do not use for a job description or role profile, use job-description-drafter instead; for a new hire's first 90 days, use onboarding-plan-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs 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。