gpt-review
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseGPT Review
GPT 评审
Launch a GPT 5.6 Sol Max reviewer to review everything fully and carefully, as if it was a senior developer reviewing the work of a junior.
Default harness is bb. Read and first. Spawn a bb thread with Codex GPT 5.6 Sol Max (use the Codex mapping in ). Reuse this thread's environment so the reviewer sees the same files. Use when this thread is coordinating the review. Then and show the exact .
/nagent/bb-cli/nagent--parent-selfbb thread waitbb thread outputIf the user names another harness (Cursor Task, cmux, Codex CLI, etc.), use that instead.
Give it the necessary context, but make sure to stay neutral and unbiased. Do not nudge it towards any one specific solution. The goal here is to do great work. So be as objective and neutral as possible in writing the prompt for the subagent.
Tell him what to review, but don't be overly specific — let him find his own bugs and shortcomings. Just tell him to work extremely hard, to go deep in the review, and to surface any critical or serious issues found in the review.
And when the subagent finishes, show the user his exact response in full. Do not rewrite it. Do not update it.
Again, the goal here is to write great software. It's to build amazing software, and in order to do that you need to let the subagent do its work: tell it what to review in a broad way, be as unbiased as possible, don't influence it in any way, and tell it to output a detailed report — telling us whether the code is good and safe to be merged into production, or whether there are any serious or critical issues with it, and if so, how to fix them.
Also tell him to make the final report concise, written in plain English.
启动GPT 5.6 Sol Max评审器,像资深开发者评审初级开发者工作那样,全面且细致地评审所有内容。
默认工具为bb。请先阅读和。通过Codex GPT 5.6 Sol Max创建一个bb线程(使用中的Codex映射)。复用此线程的环境,确保评审器能看到相同的文件。当此线程协调评审工作时,使用参数。随后执行并展示的完整结果。
/nagent/bb-cli/nagent--parent-selfbb thread waitbb thread output若用户指定了其他工具(如Cursor Task、cmux、Codex CLI等),则使用该工具替代。
为评审器提供必要的上下文,但需保持中立无偏见。不要引导它偏向任何特定解决方案。我们的目标是产出优质成果,因此在编写子代理的提示词时,需尽可能客观中立。
告知评审器需要评审的内容,但无需过于具体——让它自行发现代码中的漏洞和不足。只需要求它全力以赴、深入评审,并指出评审中发现的任何关键或严重问题。
当子代理完成评审后,向用户展示其完整的原始回复。不要改写,也不要更新内容。
再次强调,我们的目标是编写优质软件。要打造出色的软件,就需要让子代理自主完成工作:以宽泛的方式告知它评审内容,尽可能保持无偏见,不施加任何影响,并要求它输出一份详细报告——说明代码是否优质、可安全合并至生产环境,是否存在任何严重或关键问题,以及若有问题该如何修复。
同时要求它将最终报告写得简洁明了,使用通俗易懂的英文。