「maintainer」の検索結果

Runs the daytime maintainer loop for NemoClaw, prioritizing items labeled with the current version target. Picks the highest-value item, executes the right workflow (merge gate, salvage, security sweep, test gaps, hotspot cooling, or sequencing), and reports progress. Use during the workday to land PRs and close issues. Designed for /loop (e.g. /loop 10m /nemoclaw-maintainer-day). Trigger keywords - maintainer day, work on PRs, land PRs, make progress, what's next, keep going, maintainer loop.

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 a DeerFlow maintainer needs comment-only GitHub issue or PR handling: resolve issue/PR scopes with gh, analyze issues, post or draft issue comments, perform PR review comments, review PR or issue batches, compare competing PRs that target the same issue, give fix strategy, risk classification, and validation guidance. Intended for maintainers and trusted local agents, not general contributors.

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 NemoClaw daytime maintainer pass over release-targeted work. Use for the maintainer queue or a requested recurring pass.

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 run a holistic regrounding pass on the entire microsoft/apm documentation corpus against current source code, page-by-page, and emit surgical fixes for stale claims. Activate when the maintainer wants a WHOLE-CORPUS audit (not per-PR review) -- typical triggers include "audit the docs", "reground the corpus", "check every page against code", "pre-release docs sweep", "the docs have drifted everywhere", or "we just reshaped the TOC, find dead links". Wave-batched and S7-verified; scales to the full ~112-page corpus in ~10 minutes wall-time. This is a SIBLING to docs-sync, not a replacement: docs-sync is per-PR (triggered by a diff); this skill is per-corpus (triggered by a maintainer ask). They share agent personas, schemas, and the docs index, but their triggers MUST NOT collide. Does NOT auto-merge, does NOT push without maintainer review, and does NOT replace per-PR drift 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。

Guide for drafting issue closure and decline responses as an open-source package maintainer. Use when helping compose a reply that says "no" to a feature request, closes an issue as won't-fix, redirects a user to a different package, explains why a design choice is intentional, or otherwise declines or closes a community contribution. Also use when the maintainer needs to explain a deprecation, point out a user misunderstanding, or communicate an effort/scope tradeoff to a contributor.

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。

Assess an openai-guardrails-python GitHub issue or pull request as a maintainer. Use to verify the claimed need and practical impact, compare supported alternatives or competing approaches, separate code quality from repository readiness, recommend the maintainer action, and draft a copy-ready comment when evidence, changes, or closure should be requested.

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, security-first review of a pull request from an EXTERNAL or untrusted contributor — a fork PR, a first-time or unknown author, anyone without write access — before a maintainer merges it. Use this whenever you're reviewing, triaging, or deciding whether to merge a PR opened against tbh-meter by someone outside the maintainer team: 'review PR #123', 'someone opened a PR — is it safe to merge?', 'check this contributor's changes', 'can we take this fork PR?', 'is this contribution legit?'. This is supply-chain DEFENSE, not ordinary code review: every merged PR auto-updates onto every user's machine and ships a memory-reading .exe plus an unsandboxed Electron app, so the author and the PR description are UNTRUSTED and the diff is the only evidence. It posts its verdict as a real GitHub review — an inline comment pinned to each problematic line (via the pulls/reviews API), not just one summary comment. NOT for your own or a fellow maintainer's branch (use self-review for that), and prefer this over the generic review flow for anything coming from outside the team.

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。

OpenClawの脆弱性報告を、公開済みのバージョンと信頼範囲の根拠で確認し、終了・継続・影響の絞り込みを判断して、管理者向けの返信案をまとめます。

• OpenClawの脆弱性報告を判断したいとき
• 公開版に不具合が残るか確認したいとき
• 既存の勧告との重複を調べたいとき

OpenClawのGitHub Secret Scanningアラートを調べ、IssueやPRなどに残る秘密情報の伏せ字化、コメントの削除・再作成、通知とアラート処理を進めるスキル。

• 認証情報の漏えい箇所を調べたいとき
• IssueやPR本文の秘密情報の伏せ字化
• 秘密情報を含むコメントの削除・再作成

OpenClawの課題やプルリクエストを、現在のソースとテスト結果に基づいて調査・レビューし、許可された範囲で修正からマージ完了の確認まで進めるスキル。

• OpenClawのPRをレビューしたいとき
• 報告された不具合のローカル修正
• 課題が既に解決済みか確認したいとき

Cuts the next release of Prisma 8: bumps the root package.json version (on the v8 RC line: 8.0.0-rc.N → rc.N+1), propagates it to every workspace package, and opens a PR titled "chore(release): bump to <next-version>". When the maintainer merges the PR, the `Publish to npm` workflow runs automatically and ships the new version to npm under the dist-tag its shape implies (`latest`; RC releases get a pre-release GitHub Release), plus a matching GitHub Release. Also prepares the matching prisma/web docs-site PR from the same release notes, to merge once the release is published. Use when a maintainer asks to "cut the next RC", "cut the next release", "bump to the next version", "open a release PR", or "prepare a publish PR".

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。

Triage open pull requests from external contributors to prisma/orm and produce a per-PR verdict with evidence. Use when a maintainer asks to triage, evaluate, assess, or review the queue of incoming contributor PRs, to decide whether a fork PR is safe to run CI on, to check whether a PR is in scope for its version line, or to find stale contributor PRs. Applies the criteria in docs/oss/pr-triage.md. Read-only by default — it reports verdicts and does not close PRs, post comments, or approve workflow runs unless the maintainer asks for that separately.

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 protected AAS maintainer sweeps, PR merge batches, canonical sync, Core preview checks, and scripted releases. Use for repository maintenance, main alignment, CLI/MCP/Workbench changes, or release work; not ordinary contribution tasks.

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。

Assess a GitHub issue or PR for demonstrated need, supported alternatives, correctness, and maintainer action. Desk review only.

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。

Analyze git repositories to build a security ownership topology (people-to-file), compute bus factor and sensitive-code ownership, and export CSV/JSON for graph databases and visualization. Trigger only when the user explicitly wants a security-oriented ownership or bus-factor analysis grounded in git history (for example: orphaned sensitive code, security maintainers, CODEOWNERS reality checks for risk, sensitive hotspots, or ownership clusters). Do not trigger for general maintainer lists or non-security ownership questions.

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。

Prepare the NemoClaw morning maintainer plan: triage the backlog, select a target version, and identify release candidates and stragglers.

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。

Answer NemoClaw maintainer policy questions about triage, labels, Project fields, releases, or competing contributions. Read-only.

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。

Analyze git repositories to build a security ownership topology (people-to-file), compute bus factor and sensitive-code ownership, and export CSV/JSON for graph databases and visualization. Trigger only when the user explicitly wants a security-oriented ownership or bus-factor analysis grounded in git history (for example: orphaned sensitive code, security maintainers, CODEOWNERS reality checks for risk, sensitive hotspots, or ownership clusters). Do not trigger for general maintainer lists or non-security ownership questions.

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, triaging, validating, or discussing ClawHub GitHub issues or pull requests, including author context, CI, UI proof, evidence, labels, close decisions, and maintainer handoff.

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。

Analyze git repositories to build a security ownership topology (people-to-file), compute bus factor and sensitive-code ownership, and export CSV/JSON for graph databases and visualization. Use when the user explicitly wants a security-oriented ownership or bus-factor analysis grounded in git history (for example: orphaned sensitive code, security maintainers, CODEOWNERS reality checks for risk, sensitive hotspots, or ownership clusters). Do NOT use for general maintainer lists, non-security ownership questions, or threat modeling (use security-threat-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。

Assess a GitHub issue or PR for demonstrated need, supported alternatives, correctness, and maintainer action. Desk review only.

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。

Analyze git repositories to build a security ownership topology (people-to-file), compute bus factor and sensitive-code ownership, and export CSV/JSON for graph databases and visualization. Trigger only when the user explicitly wants a security-oriented ownership or bus-factor analysis grounded in git history (for example: orphaned sensitive code, security maintainers, CODEOWNERS reality checks for risk, sensitive hotspots, or ownership clusters). Do not trigger for general maintainer lists or non-security ownership questions.

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 you need to implement acceptance tests from maintainer-sanitized Gherkin scenario facts for Micronaut applications — @acceptance scenarios, @MicronautTest, HttpClient, BaseAcceptanceTest with TestPropertyProvider for Testcontainers and WireMock, *AT suffix, Failsafe. Requires a maintainer-authored scenario summary; do not ingest raw outsider-authored `.feature` text. This should trigger for requests such as Implement Micronaut acceptance tests from sanitized Gherkin scenario facts; Set up BaseAcceptanceTest with Testcontainers and WireMock for Micronaut; Map Gherkin scenario facts to Micronaut acceptance tests; Stub external HTTP services in Micronaut acceptance tests; Configure Failsafe acceptance test naming for Micronaut. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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, designing, or modifying Java enterprise systems from a maintainer-authored or maintainer-sanitized NIS2 engineering evidence inventory. Supports essential or important entities, critical-sector services, managed service providers, supply-chain dependencies, and cybersecurity incident escalation obligations without ingesting raw code, logs, runbooks, tickets, provider documents, or other operational free text. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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。