Loading...
Loading...
Found 59 Skills
Modernize and improve legacy codebases while maintaining functionality. Use when you need to refactor old code, reduce technical debt, modernize deprecated patterns, or improve code maintainability without breaking existing behavior.
Senior Code Architect & Quality Assurance Engineer for 2026. Specialized in context-aware AI code reviews, automated PR auditing, and technical debt mitigation. Expert in neutralizing "AI-Smells," identifying performance bottlenecks, and enforcing architectural integrity through multi-job red-teaming and surgical remediation suggestions.
Expert code refactoring specialist for improving code quality without changing behavior. Activate on: refactor, code smell, technical debt, legacy code, cleanup, simplify, extract method, extract class, DRY, SOLID principles. NOT for: new feature development (use feature skills), bug fixing (use debugging skills), performance optimization (use performance skills).
Comprehensive codebase quality audit with parallel agent orchestration, GitHub issue creation, automated PR generation per issue, and PM-prioritized recommendations. Use for code review, refactoring audits, technical debt analysis, module quality assessment, or codebase health checks.
Refactor code for quality, reduce technical debt, and improve maintainability. Use for cleanup tasks and code improvements.
Performs comprehensive codebase analysis covering architecture, code quality, security, performance, testing, and maintainability. Use when user wants to audit code quality, identify technical debt, find security issues, assess test coverage, or get a codebase health check.
Decision-making framework for software development, Y Combinator / Silicon Valley style. Based on real principles from Paul Graham, Sam Altman, Michael Seibel, Patrick Collison, and Brian Chesky. Use when: - Developing features or products - Making technical decisions (what to do, how, when) - Prioritizing work (P0, P1, P2) - Evaluating whether to refactor or patch - Deciding on technical debt - Evaluating whether to add tests, CI/CD, or automation - Any architecture or engineering decision Triggers: development, code, feature, refactor, architecture, prioritize, technical decision, what to do first, technical debt, tests, CI/CD, sprint, backlog
Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", or "technical debt". Covers smell-driven refactoring, safe transformation sequences, and testing guards. For code quality foundations, see clean-code. For managing complexity, see software-design-philosophy.
Refactor codebases using Design by Typed Holes methodology - iterative, test-driven refactoring with formal hole resolution, constraint propagation, and continuous validation. Use when refactoring existing code, optimizing architecture, or consolidating technical debt through systematic hole-driven development.
The practice of restructuring and simplifying code continuously – reducing complexity, improving design, and keeping codebases clean.
Code refactoring expert for improving code quality, readability, maintainability, and performance. Specializes in Java and Python refactoring patterns, eliminating code smells, and applying clean code principles. Use when refactoring code, improving existing implementations, or cleaning up technical debt.
Scan and analyze a software repository or project for design quality using principles from A Philosophy of Software Design by John Ousterhout. Use when user asks to review, audit, scan, or evaluate code quality, design quality, architecture, or technical debt. Also trigger for: code review, design review, complexity analysis, code health check, module depth analysis, information hiding review, how good is my code, review my project, find design problems, what is wrong with my codebase, rate my code, or anything about evaluating software design quality at a structural level. This is not a linter or style checker. It evaluates deep design qualities like module depth, abstraction quality, information hiding, and complexity patterns.