Total 44,134 skills, Code Quality has 2068 skills
Showing 12 of 2068 skills
Use when reviewing code for bugs, security issues, race conditions, N+1 queries, trust boundary violations, or any pre-merge quality check
Defense-in-depth verification before declaring any task complete. Run tests, check build, validate changed files, verify no regressions. Applies 4-level adversarial artifact verification (EXISTS > SUBSTANTIVE > WIRED > DATA FLOWS) with goal-backward framing. Use before saying "done", "fixed", or "complete" on any code change. Use for "verify", "make sure it works", "check before committing", or "validate changes". Do NOT use for debugging (use systematic-debugging) or code review (use systematic-code-review).
Go-specific code review with 6-phase methodology: Context, Automated Checks, Quality Analysis, Specific Analysis, Line-by-Line, Documentation. Use when reviewing Go code, PRs, or auditing Go codebases for quality and best practices. Use for "review Go", "Go PR", "check Go code", "Go quality", "review .go". Do NOT use for writing new Go code, debugging Go bugs, or refactoring -- use golang-general-engineer, systematic-debugging, or systematic-refactoring for those tasks.
Validate-then-fix workflow for PR review comments: Fetch, Validate, Plan, Fix, Commit. Use when user wants to address PR feedback, fix review comments, or resolve reviewer requests. Use for "fix PR comments", "address review", "pr-fix", or "resolve feedback". Do NOT use for creating PRs, reviewing code without fixing, or general debugging unrelated to PR comments.
Statistical rule discovery through measurement of Go codebases: Count patterns, derive confidence-scored rules, produce Style Vector fingerprint. Use when analyzing codebase conventions, extracting implicit coding rules, profiling a repo before onboarding or PR automation. Use for "analyze codebase", "find coding patterns", "what conventions does this repo use", "extract rules", or "codebase DNA". Do NOT use for code review, bug fixes, refactoring, or performance optimization.
Evidence-based 4-phase root cause analysis: Reproduce, Isolate, Identify, Verify. Use when user reports a bug, tests are failing, code introduced regressions, or production issues need investigation. Use for "debug", "fix bug", "why is this failing", "root cause", or "tests broken". Do NOT use for feature requests, refactoring, or performance optimization without a specific bug symptom.
Audits all OrchestKit skills for quality, completeness, and compliance with authoring standards. Use when checking skill health, before releases, or after bulk skill edits to surface SKILL.md files that are too long, have missing frontmatter, lack rules/references, or are unregistered in manifests.
Simplify and refine recently modified code while preserving functionality. Use when asked to "deslop", "clean up code", "simplify code", or after making changes that could benefit from refinement.
Execute a micro-level NestJS code quality audit. Validates code against live GitHub standards for testing, architecture, DTO validation, error handling, and code implementation. Produces a detailed violations report with prioritized action plan. Use when the user asks to check NestJS code quality, validate best practices, or review backend code standards. Triggers on: 'nestjs best practices', 'backend code quality', 'code review', 'nestjs standards', 'dto validation', 'error handling review'.
Execute a micro-level React code quality audit. Validates code against live GitHub standards for testing, component architecture, hooks patterns, state management, performance, and TypeScript. Produces a detailed violations report with prioritized action plan. Use when the user asks to check React code quality, validate best practices, or review frontend code standards. Triggers on: 'react best practices', 'react code quality', 'component review', 'hooks review', 'react standards', 'frontend code quality'.
Use when you need to review, improve, or refactor Java code for generics quality — including avoiding raw types, applying the PECS (Producer Extends Consumer Super) principle for wildcards, using bounded type parameters, designing effective generic methods, leveraging the diamond operator, understanding type erasure implications, handling generic inheritance correctly, preventing heap pollution with @SafeVarargs, and integrating generics with modern Java features like Records, sealed types, and pattern matching. Part of the skills-for-java project
Reviews codebases, architectures, PRs, and technical plans for vanity engineering — code and systems built for the developer's ego, resume, or intellectual pleasure rather than delivering user or business value. Triggers on: "review this code", "is this over-engineered", "code review", "architecture review", "complexity audit", "vanity check", "is this necessary", "simplify this", "tech debt review", or any request to evaluate whether code or architecture is justified by actual requirements. Also trigger when the user shares a codebase and asks for feedback, when discussing framework/library choices, when reviewing PRs, or when someone is debating whether to refactor or rebuild. Nudge activation when you detect patterns of unnecessary abstraction, premature optimization, or resume-driven technology choices in code the user shares — even if they haven't asked for a vanity review.