Total 50,522 skills, Code Quality has 2289 skills
Showing 12 of 2289 skills
Use when a subtask is ready to implement and has a subtask JSON file with acceptance criteria and deliverables.
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
The orchestrator and entry point for the engineering skills suite. Use this skill whenever the task involves doing engineering work to a high bar — reviewing code or a design, designing a new system or component, debugging a hard problem or running an incident, implementing a substantive change, writing documentation, or sanity-checking an approach. Use it when the user phrases things casually ("rip into this", "be brutal", "is this approach right", "what am I missing", "what would you change", "look at this") or formally ("review this PR", "audit this design"). Use it proactively for any non-trivial engineering work, before declaring something done. The skill triages the work, dispatches to the right specialty skill(s), enforces verification, and produces an evidence-backed result. The goal is to ensure no AI shortcut, sycophantic agreement, or stylistic distraction gets in the way of work that holds up to senior-engineer scrutiny.
Activate when creating new modules, refactoring class hierarchies, introducing design patterns, or making changes spanning 3+ files in the APM CLI codebase.
Apply when wiring validation, error handling, or framework adapters. Concentrate guards at system boundaries (CLI, config, network, external APIs); trust internal types and keep business logic in pure functions.
Apply when you catch yourself writing the same instruction a second time, or notice a recurring correction. Encode the rule as a lint, metadata flag, runtime check, or script instead of more text.
Use when doing dev-stage self-review on the current branch before pushing or opening a PR — runs an auto-loop of codex review (cross-model, OpenAI) + per-finding fix + re-review until findings converge or stop conditions fire. Codex follows pr-review's multi-role methodology (security / staff-engineer / sdet / spec-auditor). Triggers — 'self review', 'self-review', '自己 review', '自我 review', 'cross-model review', 'pre-push review', 'review and fix my branch'. NOT for live PR review with sticky/inline comments (use pr-review), NOT for managed PR babysitting (use pr-babysit), NOT for first-time review without intent to fix (use mode=review-only opt-in).
Standalone quality review for Elastic integrations. Classifies files by domain, loads domain-specific skills and review checklists, applies cross-domain consistency rules, CEL version verification, API conformance, and severity calibration. Input-agnostic: works on local packages, PR diffs, or branch comparisons. Use when reviewing integration quality independently of any build or fix workflow.
Review generated or changed production code before it ships, using Clean Code, SOLID, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, and LLM-specific failure-mode checks in any programming language. Best used reactively after an agent writes, edits, refactors, or fixes code, before presenting, committing, or merging the result. Use when the user asks "review this PR", "is this safe to merge?", "make this cleaner", "audit this code", "refactor this", "fix this bug", or after a coding agent produced implementation code. Can also guide writing when explicitly invoked before a risky edit. DO NOT USE for factual/conceptual questions, CI/tooling config, git workflow, running/debugging tests, pure architecture discussion, prose writing, data analysis, or test-code review (use test-guard).
Guide for using ty, the extremely fast Python type checker and language server. Use this when type checking Python code or setting up type checking in Python projects.
Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review.
Evidence-grounded as-is architecture analysis and change-impact (blast-radius). Activates when the user asks to map the architecture, assess dependencies or coupling, or evaluate "what would change if we…".