kotlin-code-review
Skill0 starsChanged 54 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Review Kotlin changes for correctness, compatibility, concurrency, nullability, API, security, performance, test quality, and Gradle integration. Use when asked to review, audit, assess risk, or explain defects in Kotlin code; produce evidence-backed findings without modifying code unless a fix is explicitly requested.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- yukiykchen/kuikly-skillstheir own version, first seen Dec 3, 2025
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- yukiykchen/kuikly-skills★ 4same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- openspec-apply-changeSkill
- openspec-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-exploreSkill
- openspec-proposeSkill
- kotlin-coroutinesSkill
- kotlin-gradle-buildSkill
- kotlin-java-migrationSkill
- kotlin-java-migration-testingSkill
- kotlin-stableSkill
- kotlin-testingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 13
Read the change, surrounding contracts, call sites, build configuration, and relevant tests.
- Distinctive: line 15
Check nullability and platform types, equality/hash behavior, exceptions, ABI, serialization, coroutine cancellation, resource ownership, …
- Distinctive: line 16
Verify tests would fail for plausible defects and exercise production paths.
- Distinctive: line 34
If no actionable defect is found, say so and list remaining validation gaps.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Kotlin Code Review
Lead with findings ordered by severity. A review is not a style summary.
Evidence workflow
- Read the change, surrounding contracts, call sites, build configuration, and relevant tests.
- Reproduce or statically trace each suspected defect.
- Check nullability and platform types, equality/hash behavior, exceptions, ABI, serialization, coroutine cancellation, resource ownership, and dependency scopes.
- Verify tests would fail for plausible defects and exercise production paths.
- Report each finding with location, trigger, impact, and smallest credible remedy.
Severity
- Critical: data loss, exploitable security defect, broad outage, or irreversible incompatibility.
- High: common-path wrong result, deadlock/leak, broken public contract, or migration parity failure.
- Medium: bounded correctness, resilience, performance, or maintainability risk.
- Low: concrete improvement with limited operational impact.
Kotlin-specific checks
- Unsafe
!!, unchecked casts, platform-type leakage, mutable collection exposure. - Data-class equality or copy semantics that differ from the domain contract.
- Java ABI changes caused by defaults, overloads, wildcards, companions, or exception annotations.
- Coroutine scope leaks, swallowed cancellation, blocking on limited dispatchers, unbounded Flow buffers.
- Gradle dependency leakage, mismatched JVM targets, eager tasks, secret exposure, and non-reproducible generation.
If no actionable defect is found, say so and list remaining validation gaps. Do not invent findings to fill a template.
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
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.