「maintainability」の検索結果

Review a verdaccio diff, branch, or pull request against the repository review guide (security first, then npm-client compatibility, performance, product fit, maintainability), verify each finding against the code, and report actionable issues. Use for code reviews and for reviewing your own changes before or during a PR workflow.

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。

Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quality. Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single 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。

Writes and reviews structured Lean 4 proofs and designs Lean libraries following Mathlib conventions. Use when proving theorems in Lean, formalizing mathematics or specifications in Lean 4, defining new types or definitions in a Lean library, reviewing Lean proofs for readability and maintainability, refactoring long tactic proofs into lemmas, filling in sorry placeholders in a Lean development, setting up CI or linters for a Lean project, diagnosing slow proofs or maxHeartbeats timeouts, or writing custom tactics, macros, or linters.

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。

Optimize CircleCI configuration for speed, reliability, and maintainability. Use when users ask to improve `.circleci/config.yml`, reduce CI runtime, tune caching/workspaces/parallelism, remove pipeline waste, or fix flaky pipeline behavior caused by configuration choices.

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。

Audits agent config, instruction drift, hooks or MCP, and AI maintainability. Use when Claude, Codex, or Pi setup looks wrong. Not for application bugs or PR 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。

Perform comprehensive code reviews focusing on best practices, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and maintainability

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。

Comprehensively reviews SwiftUI code for best practices on modern APIs, maintainability, and performance. Use when reading, writing, or reviewing SwiftUI 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。

DO NOT INVOKE when the primary request explicitly asks to convert, migrate, modernize, or rewrite a legacy/old-style project to SDK style; use msbuild-modernization. Migration prompts often mention ToolsVersion, explicit Compile/Reference entries, packages.config, or Microsoft.CSharp.targets, but merely reviewing or auditing a file that contains those patterns remains in scope here. USE FOR broad review, audit, lint, or maintainability/correctness checks of project/build files, including custom targets; prioritized cross-cutting findings; discrete anti-patterns; F# ordering/FS0039; cross-platform paths; and focused Import safety verdicts. Review/audit is analysis-only unless fixes are requested. For concrete property/item defects use property-patterns/item-management; use target-authoring for implementation and extension-points for NuGet auto-import/layout discovery. Exclude non-MSBuild systems.

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 resolved dependencies and relevant code paths for security vulnerabilities. Use for security checks or /vuln-check; use audit for a broader correctness and maintainability 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。

Audit the repository or a broad subsystem for security, correctness, and maintainability risks. Use for audit requests or /audit; use review for a specific change and vuln-check for a security-only 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。

Review an explicitly identified Marin pull request against the repository's correctness and maintainability expectations.

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。

Implement proven backend architecture patterns including Clean Architecture, Hexagonal Architecture, and Domain-Driven Design. Use when architecting complex backend systems or refactoring existing applications for better maintainability.

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。

Default code-quality route for broad code review, PR review, maintainability, correctness, and regression-risk checks. Do not use as the primary route for dedicated OWASP/security audits, review-feedback handling, completion verification, AI-code cleanup, or TDD/test-first work.

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, security, and maintainability. Supports local git diffs (staged or working tree) and remote Pull Requests (by ID or URL). Use when the user asks to review code, check a PR, audit changes, or wants feedback on code quality before merging.

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。

Multi-dimensional code assessment across security, quality, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting (>=80%) and Router Contract generation.

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。

Multi-dimensional code review across correctness, security, performance, and maintainability with confidence-gated reporting and remediation loops.

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。

You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.

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。

Implement proven backend architecture patterns including Clean Architecture, Hexagonal Architecture, and Domain-Driven Design. Use when architecting complex backend systems or refactoring existing applications for better maintainability.

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。

You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.

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。

Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions.

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。

Tech debt assessment that identifies, classifies, and prioritizes maintainability problems — helping teams build a refactoring roadmap — drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks about tech debt, refactoring priorities, what to clean up first, or asks "why is this so hard to change?", "what should we fix first?", or "how do I justify refactoring to management?". Do NOT trigger for: server health checks, HTTP /health endpoints, Kubernetes probes, database health, or application uptime — "health" in those contexts is infrastructure, not code quality. Also not for single-function refactoring 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。

PR code review that surfaces decay risks, design smells, and maintainability issues with concrete Symptom → Source → Consequence → Remedy findings, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks to review code, check a PR, shares a diff or pastes code asking "does this look right?" / "any issues here?" / "ready to merge?", or asks for feedback on a function, class, or file. Also triggers when user mentions: code smells / refactoring / clean architecture / DDD / SOLID principles / Hyrum's Law / deep modules / tactical programming / conceptual integrity / Brooks's Law / Mythical Man-Month / second system effect. Do NOT trigger for: questions about how to write code from scratch, language syntax questions, or framework/tool questions where no existing code is shared.

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。

Behavioral guardrails for Codex coding work based on common user complaints. Use when Codex is asked to implement, modify, debug, review, test, or operate on a codebase and should avoid unsafe scope expansion, stale edits, fake completion, brittle edits, shallow debugging, superficial patch-on fixes, one-off special-case code, short-term design choices that hurt maintainability, blindly following incorrect user assumptions, poor dependency choices, generic product or UI output, over-mocked tests, noisy approvals, verbose status reports, or leaking internal reasoning into project artifacts or user-facing UI.

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 MATLAB code for quality, performance, maintainability, and adherence to MathWorks coding standards. Uses check_matlab_code and matlab_coding_guidelines. Use when reviewing code, checking style, finding code smells, assessing quality, or preparing code for handoff or publication.

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。