Total 55,302 skills, Code Quality has 2489 skills
Showing 12 of 2489 skills
Validates recently written code against project-specific development guidelines from .trellis/spec/. Identifies changed files via git diff, discovers applicable spec modules, runs lint and typecheck, and reports guideline violations. Use when code is written and needs quality verification, to catch context drift during long sessions, or before committing changes.
Multi-cycle performance optimization with profiling and bottleneck analysis. Use when optimizing application performance.
Verify cross-component wiring: exports are imported AND used, real data flows through connections, output shapes match input expectations. Use after /feature-implement, before /feature-validate, or standalone on any codebase. Use for "check integration", "verify wiring", "are components connected", "integration check", or "/integration-checker". Do NOT use for unit test failures, linting, or single-file correctness issues.
Execute a micro-level Flutter code quality audit. Validates code against live GitHub standards for testing, architecture, and code implementation. Produces a detailed violations report with prioritized action plan. Use when the user asks to check Flutter code quality, validate best practices, or review code standards compliance. Triggers on: 'flutter best practices', 'code quality', 'code review', 'flutter standards', 'architecture compliance', 'testing quality'.
Agent skill for reviewer - invoke with $agent-reviewer
Run Ruff checks with optional scope and rule overrides, apply safe and unsafe autofixes iteratively, review each change, and resolve remaining findings with targeted edits or user decisions.
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.
Runs full trailmark structural analysis with all pre-analysis passes (blast radius, taint propagation, privilege boundaries, complexity hotspots). Use when vivisect needs detailed structural data for a target. Triggers: structural analysis, blast radius, taint analysis, complexity hotspots.
LLM-assisted human-in-the-loop review. Make sense of a change, focus attention where it matters, test. Use when the user says "checkpoint", "human review", or "walk me through this change".
Review staged git changes against an issue. Produces a structured improvement plan — no edits applied. Also identifies test file compaction opportunities. Use when asked to check, review, or validate staged work before committing. Part 2 of 3 in the issue-review-two-phases workflow.
Review checks reference for validating Umbraco backoffice extensions
Python development guidance with code quality standards, error handling, testing practices, and environment management. Use when writing, reviewing, or modifying Python code (.py files) or Jupyter notebooks (.ipynb files).