Total 50,309 skills, Code Quality has 2284 skills
Showing 12 of 2284 skills
Multi-layer quality assurance with 5-layer verification pyramid (Rules → Functional → Visual → Integration → Quality Scoring). Independent verification with LLM-as-judge and Agent-as-a-Judge patterns. Score 0-100 with ≥90 threshold. Use when verifying code quality, security scanning, preventing test gaming, comprehensive QA, or ensuring production readiness through multi-layer validation.
Audit Go module dependencies: detect outdated packages, check for known vulnerabilities, review go.mod hygiene, identify unused or redundant deps, and evaluate dependency quality. Use when auditing dependencies, checking for CVEs, cleaning up go.mod, upgrading modules, or evaluating third-party packages. Trigger examples: "check dependencies", "audit deps", "go.mod review", "update modules", "vulnerability scan", "govulncheck". Do NOT use for code-level security issues (use go-security-audit) or architecture review (use go-architecture-review).
Profile-driven performance optimization with behavior proofs. Use when: optimize, slow, bottleneck, hotspot, profile, p95, latency, throughput, or algorithmic improvements.
Write production-grade Rust code using a multi-pass approach. Design types first, then implement, then simplify, then verify with automated lint. Use this skill whenever writing new Rust functions, structs, modules, or features. Triggers on Rust implementation, new Rust code, Rust functions, Rust modules, error handling in Rust, async Rust, or type design in Rust.
Verify your own completed code changes using the repo's existing infrastructure and an independent evaluator context. Use after implementing a change when you need to run unit or integration tests, check build or lint gates, prove the real surface works with evidence, and challenge the changed code for clarity, deduplication, and maintainability. If the repo is not verifiable yet, hand off to `agent-readiness`; if you are reviewing someone else's code, use `review`.
Conduct an architecture health check on a design — either verify if the design is internally consistent (no conflicts between terminology, contracts, and implementation steps) or check if the design aligns with the code (ensuring what was promised in the design is actually implemented in code). This skill only outputs issue lists and repair suggestions, and does not make any modifications. It focuses on only one target each time; "顺手把另一项也查了" is not allowed. Trigger scenarios: Users say "perform architecture check", "is the design internally consistent?", "does the plan align with the code?", or want to conduct a health check before proceeding to the implement/acceptance phase.
Run a full Dune app platform review against a React/TypeScript CDF codebase, following the cognitedata/dune-app-reviews scoring criteria. Produces three artifacts: review-files.md (per-file inventory), review-packages.md (dependency audit), and review-report.md (scored report with must/should/nice-fix items). Use when the user asks for a Dune app review, pre-submit review, approval review, app certification review, code quality audit, CDF platform review, or "run dune-review" on a codebase before submission.
Stage 2 code quality review. Triggers: 'quality review', 'check code quality', or /review stage 2. Requires spec-review to have passed first. Checks SOLID, DRY, security, and test quality. Do NOT use for spec compliance — use spec-review instead.
Use when writing, fixing, or editing TypeScript code that touches APIs, JSON, environment variables, storage, databases, browser APIs, SDKs, generated clients, or other external boundaries.
Fix compilation errors, linting issues, and test failures in the warp Rust codebase. Covers presubmit checks, WASM-specific errors, and running specific tests. Use when the user hits build errors, clippy or fmt failures, test failures, or needs to run or interpret presubmit before a PR.
Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".
Validate that a branch or pull request implementation matches introduced product, technical, security, and related specs. Use when reviewing or finishing a spec-driven change and resolving mismatches between checked-in specs and implementation.