Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.
224mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
224mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Language-agnostic agent-oriented clean code: SOLID, file size limits, grep-friendly names, provenance comments, test policy, and error context. Apply when writing or reviewing code in any stack.
169mo agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Use when reviewing frontend, UI, or component code. Covers accessibility (WCAG AA), state management, bundle size, keyboard navigation, hydration, and rendering performance. Load instead of the general code-review skill for UI-focused reviews.
Coding methodology for production-grade software development. Enforces structured thinking before coding, verifying reality, simplicity, surgical changes, contract awareness, and verifiable success criteria. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring any code that must remain correct and maintainable past initial delivery. Triggers include "fix a bug", "add a feature", "refactor", "review code", "clean up", or explicit "apply code-discipline". Do NOT use for throwaway scripts, one-off prototypes, or quick demos.
Use when reviewing or writing Python/Go/SQL code for quant research, backtests, market-data pipelines, or trading systems. Provides a structured checklist of failure modes specific to time-series financial code (lookahead, splits, snapshots, currency, NaN propagation, joint-filer dedup) that generic code review skips.
The standard way for production teams to connect frontend and backend branches and ensure integration before merging to main is to use temporary integration or "test" branches for local verification, automated testing, and code review.
Run security scans with the ASH (Automated Security Helper) MCP server. Use this skill whenever the user asks to scan for vulnerabilities, run a security check, find CVEs, audit dependencies, check for secrets, run SAST or SCA, scan IaC (Terraform/CloudFormation/Kubernetes), check for hardcoded credentials, or mentions ASH, Bandit, Semgrep, Checkov, Grype, Syft, or detect-secrets. Also trigger when the user wants to find security issues, harden a codebase, or asks "is my code secure". Do NOT trigger for code review without security context, performance audits, or test writing.
7113d agoReviewMountCreate a free account to mount
Packs the entire codebase (or selected folders) into a single token-efficient file using repomix, so other skills can analyze the whole repo without re-reading individual files. Use when the task requires whole-codebase context: full security audits, cross-cutting refactors, architecture review, project-wide code review, or first-time onboarding to an unfamiliar repo. Auto-runs once per session at first invocation of agent-master.
Use when reviewing REST or HTTP API endpoints, controllers, or route handlers. Covers HTTP status codes, idempotency, versioning, auth, pagination, error shapes, and rate limiting. Load instead of the general code-review skill for API-focused reviews.
Use when writing or reviewing code with object graphs, service dependencies, or testability concerns. Covers constructor injection, DI containers, lifetimes, and anti-patterns (service locator, ambient context, over-injection).
56 laws and principles of software engineering (Conway, Brooks, Hyrum, Gall, Postel, CAP, YAGNI, DRY, SOLID, Pareto, Amdahl, Murphy, and more). Use when designing architecture, planning projects, debating scope, reviewing code, running postmortems, or making engineering decisions where an established principle applies.
The single source of security review criteria: OWASP-style checklist (SEC-01..19) plus stack- and domain-specific items, standalone, as code-review's security depth, or a lean full-repo audit before production. Use for \"cek keamanan kode ini\", \"security audit\", \"find vulnerabilities\", \"aman gak ini\", \"is it safe to ship security-wise\", \"audit menyeluruh sebelum production\".
Code reviewer for Flutter/Dart mobile game changes. Use to review a diff/PR for bugs, style, and architectural violations against the skill's rules and the Dart quality bar. Read-only — reports findings, does not edit. Call last, after implementation and tests.
Nosy — the nosy product manager that lives inside your coding agent. Apply for product-decision requests like "what can we build next", "can we do this", "what shipped this week", "what's ready in the backend", "what did rivals do", "roadmap", "write a PRD". Do NOT use for code review (bugs, style, quality).
Senior code review across quality, security, performance, spec consistency and tests, with evidence-backed, severity-ranked findings. Load it for any review, even a short snippet or a quick \"is this OK?\". Use for \"review this\", \"cek kode\", \"cek dulu sebelum merge\", \"ada yang salah gak\", \"review PR\", \"find bugs\". Security-only asks go to security-review.