agentleFS
scoobydont-666scoobydont-666/shared-claude-skills/skills/code-quality/SKILL.md

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

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the reference file(s) for the relevant domain(s) before analysis.

    line 39
  2. Distinctive:

    Trade-offs: Every suggestion has a cost.

    line 46
  3. Distinctive:

    When scanning broadly, output a summary table:

    line 51
  4. Distinctive:

    When analyzing one domain deeply:

    line 66
  5. Distinctive:

    Use +/- modifiers. Grade relative to the stated context (prototype gets more lenient grading than production code).

    line 83
  6. Distinctive:

    Read before deep-diving into a domain:

    line 115

“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 Skill

Deep analysis of code quality across four domains. Works alongside code-consistency which handles surface-level triage; this skill goes deep.


Domains

DomainReferenceFocus
Performancereferences/performance.mdAlgorithmic complexity, resource management, concurrency
Securityreferences/security.mdInjection, auth, secrets, input validation, attack surface
Testabilityreferences/testability.mdDesign for testing, coverage strategy, dependency management
Architecturereferences/architecture.mdSOLID, 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.

TriggerDomain(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 triageFlagged 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:

  1. Executive summary — 2-3 sentences on overall quality
  2. Critical findings — numbered, with code references and fix examples
  3. Suggested improvements — grouped by impact
  4. Trade-off analysis — what you'd gain and lose from each suggestion
  5. Recommended next steps — prioritized action list

Grading Scale

GradeMeaning
AProduction-quality. Minor style suggestions only.
BGood. A few real issues but fundamentally sound.
CFunctional but concerning. Multiple issues that will compound.
DSignificant problems. Refactoring recommended before shipping.
FDangerous. 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:

LevelLabelMeaning
🔴CRITICALMust fix. Bug risk, security hole, or severe performance issue.
🟡SUGGESTShould fix. Real improvement but not blocking.
🔵NOTEInformational. 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 strategies
  • references/security.md — OWASP patterns, injection prevention, auth/authz, secrets management, input validation, supply chain
  • references/testability.md — Dependency injection, seam identification, mock strategies, coverage analysis, test pyramid, design-for-test patterns
  • references/architecture.md — SOLID deep-dive, coupling metrics, layering patterns, abstraction quality, module boundaries, technical debt indicators

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.