code-quality
Skill1 starsChanged 30 days agoMITView on GitHub
Analyze code performance, security, testability and architecture; trace concrete defects and propose maintainable, evidence-backed fixes.
77 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- magnusrodseth/dotfilestheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- KadirHarmanc/nazar-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AndersonAndrad/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Mehul72/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- eea/eea.agent.skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- notque/vexjoy-agenttheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
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.
ffsshhttiikkSkillspring-boot
Spring Boot framework and Java enterprise patterns
Also in 3 projects that use this
DIL8654Skilllogging-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-slalomSkilljpa-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
ffsshhttiikkSkilldesign-patterns
Practical application and coding skills for Design Patterns
Also in 4 projects that use this
glommerSkillpr-workflow
General guidelines for Commits, formatting, CI, dependencies, security
Also in 4 projects that use this
vm0-aiSkillcli-design
Design patterns and conventions for the Okou CLI user experience
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions77 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 77
- tursodatabase/turso★ 25ksame name
- superdesigndev/treg★ 7.7ksame name
- doorkeeper-gem/doorkeeper★ 5.5ksame name
- static-web-server/static-web-server★ 2.4ksame name
- piomin/claude-ai-spring-boot★ 1.4ksame name
- microsoft/winappCli★ 1.4ksame name
- glommer/pgmicro★ 1.2ksame name
- vm0-ai/vm0★ 1.2ksame name
- rommapp/argosy-launcher★ 710same name
- waybarrios/opencode-power-pack★ 547same name
67 more not listed
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 repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- ansible-hardeningSkill
- cavetechSkill
- ci-cdSkill
- claude-to-cursorSkill
- code-consistencySkill
- config-auditorSkill
- container-sandboxSkill
- cpa-tax-specialistSkill
- database-designSkill
- definition-of-doneSkill
- differential-reviewSkill
- exact-head-reviewSkill
- fast-ciSkill
- grill-meSkill
- inbound-syncSkill
- infosec-architectSkill
- insecure-defaultsSkill
- lonely-sysadminSkill
- mcp-createSkill
- mcp-hardeningSkill
- model-evaluationSkill
- modern-pythonSkill
- ms-office-suiteSkill
- mutation-checkSkill
- plan-to-execution-handoffSkill
- prd-to-planSkill
- property-based-testingSkill
- pr-truth-triageSkill
- repo-hardening-workflowSkill
- resume-writerSkill
- skill-updaterSkill
- software-developerSkill
- software-development-lifecycleSkill
- solutions-architectSkill
- stay-readySkill
- supply-chain-risk-auditorSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- tddSkill
- token-miserSkill
- triage-issueSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
- write-a-prdSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 71 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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
- Distinctive: line 39
Read the reference file(s) for the relevant domain(s) before analysis.
- Distinctive: line 46
Trade-offs: Every suggestion has a cost.
- Distinctive: line 51
When scanning broadly, output a summary table:
- Distinctive: line 66
When analyzing one domain deeply:
- Distinctive: line 83
Use +/- modifiers. Grade relative to the stated context (prototype gets more lenient grading than production code).
- Distinctive: line 115
Read before deep-diving into a domain:
“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.
Files
Code Quality Skill
Deep analysis of code quality across four domains. Works alongside code-consistency
which handles surface-level triage; this skill goes deep.
Domains
| Domain | Reference | Focus |
| Performance | references/performance.md | Algorithmic complexity, resource management, concurrency |
| Security | references/security.md | Injection, auth, secrets, input validation, attack surface |
| Testability | references/testability.md | Design for testing, coverage strategy, dependency management |
| Architecture | references/architecture.md | SOLID, coupling/cohesion, layering, abstraction quality |
Workflow
Step 1 — Scope the Analysis
Determine which domain(s) the user needs. If unspecified, do a quick scan across all four and focus on the domain(s) with the most findings.
| Trigger | Domain(s) to load |
| "Is this fast enough?" / "optimize" / "slow" | Performance |
| "Is this secure?" / "vulnerability" / "audit" | Security |
| "How do I test this?" / "hard to mock" / "coverage" | Testability |
| "Is this well-designed?" / "refactor" / "clean up" | Architecture |
| "Review this code" / "is this good?" / "can this be better" | All four (quick scan) |
| Escalation from code-consistency quality triage | Flagged domain(s) |
Step 2 — Load Reference Files
Read the reference file(s) for the relevant domain(s) before analysis.
Step 3 — Analyze
Apply the domain-specific checklists and patterns from the reference files. Always consider:
- Context: Library vs application, hot path vs cold path, prototype vs production
- Language: Apply language-specific patterns where they exist
- Trade-offs: Every suggestion has a cost. Name it explicitly.
Step 4 — Report
Quick Scan Report (all four domains)
When scanning broadly, output a summary table:
| Domain | Grade | Critical | Suggested | Notes |
|---------------|-------|----------|-----------|--------------------------|
| Performance | B | 1 | 3 | O(n²) in event loop |
| Security | A- | 0 | 2 | Missing rate limiting |
| Testability | C | 2 | 4 | God class, hidden deps |
| Architecture | B+ | 0 | 3 | Minor SRP violations |Then detail the critical findings. Suggested findings go in a collapsible section or follow-up if the user wants them.
Deep Dive Report (single domain)
When analyzing one domain deeply:
- Executive summary — 2-3 sentences on overall quality
- Critical findings — numbered, with code references and fix examples
- Suggested improvements — grouped by impact
- Trade-off analysis — what you'd gain and lose from each suggestion
- Recommended next steps — prioritized action list
Grading Scale
| Grade | Meaning |
| A | Production-quality. Minor style suggestions only. |
| B | Good. A few real issues but fundamentally sound. |
| C | Functional but concerning. Multiple issues that will compound. |
| D | Significant problems. Refactoring recommended before shipping. |
| F | Dangerous. Critical issues (security holes, data loss risk, severe perf). |
Use +/- modifiers. Grade relative to the stated context (prototype gets more lenient grading than production code).
Severity Levels
Same as code-consistency for interoperability:
| Level | Label | Meaning |
| 🔴 | CRITICAL | Must fix. Bug risk, security hole, or severe performance issue. |
| 🟡 | SUGGEST | Should fix. Real improvement but not blocking. |
| 🔵 | NOTE | Informational. Context or trade-off acknowledgment. |
Cross-Domain Patterns
These apply across all four domains:
- Dead code: Unreachable branches, unused imports, commented-out code blocks
- Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity >10 in a single function, nesting >3 levels
- Duplication: Same logic in 3+ places without abstraction
- Naming/intent mismatch: Function name promises one thing, implementation does another
- Missing documentation: Public API without doc comments, complex algorithms without explanation, non-obvious business rules without context
Reference Files
Read before deep-diving into a domain:
references/performance.md— Complexity analysis, memory/allocation patterns, concurrency, I/O optimization, profiling strategiesreferences/security.md— OWASP patterns, injection prevention, auth/authz, secrets management, input validation, supply chainreferences/testability.md— Dependency injection, seam identification, mock strategies, coverage analysis, test pyramid, design-for-test patternsreferences/architecture.md— SOLID deep-dive, coupling metrics, layering patterns, abstraction quality, module boundaries, technical debt indicators
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.

