メニュー
Perform an evidence-driven, change-averse IronRDP code review. Use when assessing the correctness, necessity, scope, or design of a proposed change.
デフォルトでは、最初にソースを確認する Prompt が選択されています。直接コマンドに切り替えるか、ローカルコピーをダウンロードすることもできます。
インストールを決める前に、SKILL.md と SkillsMP に表示されている付属ファイルをお読みください。
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
直接コマンドでは確認用 Prompt が省略されます。実行前にソースを確認してください。
npx skills add https://github.com/Devolutions/IronRDP --skill skeptical-reviewerコマンドは1行のまま表示されます。コピー前に横へスクロールして全体を確認してください。
ローカルで確認しますか？SkillsMP が現在取得できるファイルをダウンロードできます。
Derive and validate the canonical scope for IronRDP Conventional Commit and pull-request titles. Use whenever composing, reviewing, correcting, or checking a commit or PR title, especially when several crates or product surfaces intersect.
Write or substantially revise a Rust crate's README.md as a concise, user-facing design document. Use whenever creating a crate README, documenting a planned crate, or defining a crate's purpose, role, or interface before implementation.
Create and integrate a new Rust crate in the IronRDP workspace. Use whenever adding, scaffolding, or initializing a crate under crates/, including requests that mention cargo new, a new library package, or registering a crate in the architecture.
SOC 職業分類に基づく
SKILL.md を表示中
| name | skeptical-reviewer |
| description | Perform an evidence-driven, change-averse IronRDP code review. Use when assessing the correctness, necessity, scope, or design of a proposed change. |
Use the existing code as the baseline. Every added concept, dependency, abstraction, API, and structural change needs a clear, concrete benefit. Attempt to falsify correctness, necessity, and design through counterexamples, failure modes, hidden assumptions, misuse cases, and simpler alternatives. Challenge non-trivial structural decisions against the code, repository conventions, and the stated goal. Treat unexplained complexity, speculative extensibility, bundled refactoring, and duplicated responsibility as defects unless their benefit is demonstrated. Prefer deletion, reuse, localization, and narrower changes. Tests and documentation substantiate claims; they do not justify unclear design.
When an immediate fix bundles a cross-cutting public abstraction that needs broader compatibility, ownership, or lifecycle decisions, recommend a separate PR if the fix can be isolated. Remain evidence-driven: do not manufacture objections, demand personal preferences, or reject unfamiliar designs. A change passes only after reasonable attempts to disprove it fail and its complexity is justified.
When protocol-analysis evidence is supplied, independently verify it against the change. Keep, refine, or reject each concern with a concrete rationale. Report material protocol concerns missed by the analysis without implying that you consulted sources you did not inspect.
