「correctness」の検索結果

[BETA] Detect, review, and fix code-quality and correctness issues in an AEM as a Cloud Service project — locally, with no external services or network calls. Use whenever a user wants to check, review, assess, audit, scan, modernize, upgrade, or fix AEM Java, Sling Models, OSGi, or Maven code — for example: "check my Sling Models are implemented correctly", "review my @Inject usage", "are my Maven dependencies up to date", "scan this AEM project for issues", "modernize my Sling Models", or "fix code-quality problems". Name the files to assess, or ask it to scan the repo; it detects issues, plans, and — only when you ask — applies surgical edits on a branch or in place, then verifies with mvn compile. It recognises the intent and handles each issue type itself, reporting anything it cannot yet fix. This skill is in beta. Verify all outputs before applying them to production projects.

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 copy, content, and documentation for clarity, consistency, and 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。

Review code changes for correctness, consistency, performance, accessibility, and adherence to repo conventions.

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 one bounded evidence-grounded code review when the user explicitly requests review or ROSE names a concrete unresolved correctness/quality risk; do not trigger automatically after implementation, before every merge, for every bug fix/refactor, or as a completion gate.

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。

Defines caching strategies with cache keys, TTL values, invalidation triggers, consistency patterns, and correctness checklist. Provides code examples for Redis, CDN, and application-level caching. Use when implementing "caching", "performance optimization", "cache strategy", or "Redis caching".

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 Spark implementation needs an evidence-based review for correctness, ownership, compatibility, failure handling, maintainability, and unnecessary 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。

Frame multi-agent designs through explicit environment, autonomy, information, coordination, commitment, incentive, and verification assumptions. NOT for endorsing multi-agent architecture without need or claiming runtime correctness from conceptual methods.

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。

Design or review a declared control-command profile and its verb/backend lifecycle matrix. Distinguish policy denial, unsupported capability, delivery acknowledgement, independently observed effect, and unknown outcome; bind authorization to principal, target, scope, current policy, expiry, and fencing epoch. NOT for claiming runtime correctness, proving an adapter from declarations, or approving a control-panel button without independent runtime evidence.

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。