Total 44,144 skills, Code Quality has 2071 skills
Showing 12 of 2071 skills
Style, review, and refactoring standards for Bash shell scripting. Trigger when `.sh` files, files with `#!/usr/bin/env bash` or `#!/bin/bash`, or CI workflow blocks with `shell: bash` are created, modified, or reviewed and Bash-specific quality controls (quoting safety, error handling, portability, readability) must be enforced. Do not use for generic POSIX `sh`, PowerShell, or language-specific application style rules. In multi-language pull requests, run together with other applicable `*-style-guide` skills.
Code review practices with technical rigor and verification gates. Practices: receiving feedback, requesting reviews, verification gates. Capabilities: technical evaluation, evidence-based claims, PR review, subagent-driven review, completion verification. Actions: review, evaluate, verify, validate code changes. Keywords: code review, PR review, pull request, technical feedback, review feedback, completion claim, verification, evidence-based, code quality, review request, technical rigor, subagent review, code-reviewer, review gate, merge criteria. Use when: receiving code review feedback, completing major features, making completion claims, requesting systematic reviews, validating before merge, preventing false completion claims.
TypeScript and JavaScript development standards for modern web and Node.js development. Covers strict TypeScript configuration, type safety patterns, ESM modules, async/await, testing with Jest/Vitest, and security best practices. Use when working with .ts, .tsx, .js, .mjs files, package.json, tsconfig.json, or when asking about TypeScript/JavaScript best practices.
Internal skill. Use cc10x-router for all development tasks.
When writing or reviewing code to eliminate duplicated knowledge and business logic. Use when the user says "this is duplicated," "we have this in two places," "single source of truth," "DRY this up," or "shotgun surgery." For premature abstraction concerns, see yagni.
AQE skill
Unvarnished technical criticism combining Linus Torvalds' precision, Gordon Ramsay's standards, and James Bach's BS-detection. Use when code/tests need harsh reality checks, certification schemes smell fishy, or technical decisions lack rigor. No sugar-coating, just surgical truth about what's broken and why.
When writing or reviewing code to prevent over-engineering and speculative features. Use when the user says "is this over-engineered," "do we need this," "should I add," "future-proof," or "just in case." For simplicity concerns, see kiss. For abstraction design, see solid.
Scans code against 17 named design smells and produces a structured diagnostic report. Use when reviewing a PR for design quality, evaluating unfamiliar code against a comprehensive checklist or when the user asks for a red flags scan. Not for diagnosing why code feels complex (use complexity-recognition) or evaluating whether a PR maintains design trajectory (use code-evolution).
Use when you need to request a code review for a PR/MR and want a consistent review brief (context, scope, risk areas, test instructions, acceptance criteria) before merge.
Assesses and responds to incoming code review feedback on PRs (reviewer comments, requested changes), especially when suggestions are unclear, technically questionable, or scope-expanding. Use before implementing review suggestions to align on intent and keep changes minimal.
Verification discipline for completion claims. Use when about to assert success, claim a fix is complete, report tests passing, or before commits and PRs. Enforces evidence-first workflow.