agentleFS
05-deepak-patidar05-deepak-patidar/claude-skills/code-quality/SKILL.md

code-quality

Skill4 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Writing and reviewing maintainable, correct code in any language. Use when writing new modules, reviewing code, refactoring, naming things, handling errors, or when the user says "clean this up", "code quality", "review this", "refactor", "is this good code", or "best practices".

77 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use spring-boot, logging-patterns and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • ffsshhttiikkSkill

    spring-boot

    Spring Boot framework and Java enterprise patterns

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • DIL8654Skill

    logging-patterns

    Keep logs structured, correlated, low-noise, and safe for production support. Use when adding operational logging, reviewing observability, or improving diagnostics in .NET services.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • mstuder-slalomSkill

    jpa-patterns

    JPA/Hibernate patterns for entity design, relationships, query optimization, transactions, auditing, indexing, pagination, and pooling in Spring Boot.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • ffsshhttiikkSkill

    design-patterns

    Practical application and coding skills for Design Patterns

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • glommerSkill

    pr-workflow

    General guidelines for Commits, formatting, CI, dependencies, security

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • vm0-aiSkill

    cli-design

    Design patterns and conventions for the Okou CLI user experience

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 71 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Delete commented-out code on sight.

    line 42
  2. Distinctive:

    Never mix refactoring and behavior change in one commit.

    line 50
  3. Distinctive:

    Leave the campsite cleaner, but stay in the campsite: fixing everything you touch turns a 10-line PR into a 500-line hostage situation.

    line 52

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 71 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Code Quality

Code quality is not aesthetics. It is one measurable thing: how fast can the next person (human or AI) change this code without breaking it? Every rule below serves that.

The hierarchy — when rules conflict, higher wins

  1. Correct — handles the real input space, including the ugly parts (empty, null, duplicate, concurrent, huge, malformed).
  2. Honest — the code's names, types, and structure tell the truth about what it does. No function named validate that also saves.
  3. Changeable — the next likely change touches one place.
  4. Consistent — matches the codebase around it. A "better" pattern that fights the codebase is worse.
  5. Small/clever/fast — last, and only with evidence it matters.

Writing rules

Shape

  • Functions do one thing at one level of abstraction. The test: can you name it accurately without "and"? Length is a symptom, not the rule — a 40-line straight-line function beats 5 fragmented ones you must chase.
  • Depth over surface: prefer few functions with real behavior over layers of one-line delegation. Every hop a reader must follow is a cost; charge it against real value.
  • Data shapes beat control flow: replacing an if/else ladder with a lookup table, an enum with exhaustive matching, or a well-typed state object usually deletes bugs. Make illegal states unrepresentable where the type system allows.

Names

  • Names carry the spec: retry_delay_seconds not delay; is_eligible_for_credit not check. If a good name is impossible, the abstraction is wrong.
  • Booleans read as assertions (is_, has_, can_); functions as verbs; avoid negated booleans (not_disabled) that force double negation.

Errors — where most "quality" issues actually live

  • Handle or propagate, never swallow. An empty catch block is a bug with extra steps; catching broad Exception to log-and-continue hides corruption.
  • Fail fast at boundaries: validate inputs where they enter (API edge, file load, config boot), then the interior trusts its inputs. Validation sprinkled everywhere means it's guaranteed nowhere.
  • Error messages state what failed, with what input, and what the caller can do — written for the debugging session at 2 a.m.
  • Distinguish expected failures (user error → typed error/result, clean message) from bugs (invariant broken → crash loudly). Converting bugs into handled errors hides them.

State & dependencies

  • Minimize mutable state; minimize its scope; make mutation obvious. Global mutable state is guilty until proven innocent.
  • Side effects live at the edges; the core computes. A function that computes AND writes AND notifies is three functions wearing a trenchcoat.
  • Take dependencies explicitly (parameters/constructor), not by reaching into globals — this is what makes code testable without patching.

Comments

  • Comment why, never what: constraints, non-obvious reasons, links to the decision. If the code needs a what-comment, rewrite the code.
  • Delete commented-out code on sight; git remembers.

Duplication — the nuanced rule

Duplication is cheaper than the wrong abstraction. Extract when the copies must change together for the same reason (shared business rule); keep copies when they merely look alike today (two forms with similar fields). Rule of three: tolerate two, refactor at three — and when you extract, extract the concept, not the coincidence.

Refactoring discipline

  • Never mix refactoring and behavior change in one commit; reviewers can verify "no behavior change" or "this specific change", not both at once.
  • Refactor with a safety net (tests or at least a manual golden-path check), in steps that each keep the build green.
  • Leave the campsite cleaner, but stay in the campsite: fixing everything you touch turns a 10-line PR into a 500-line hostage situation.

Reviewing code (yours or others')

  1. First pass — intent: does this change do what was asked, and only that? Flag scope creep and silent behavior changes.
  2. Second pass — the input space: walk empty/null/zero/negative/duplicate/huge/concurrent/unauthorized through every new path.
  3. Third pass — the seams: every external call (time, network, disk, DB) — what happens when it's slow, fails, or returns garbage?
  4. Report defects as: input → wrong behavior → consequence. Rank by severity. Style nits go last, batched, and never block correctness discussion.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.