Menu
Evaluates code quality across a range of dimensions including readability, maintainability, and structural coherence. Provides actionable feedback to help developers improve their codebase through targeted suggestions and best practice guidance.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Evaluate, score, and remediate agent skill collections using a 9-dimension quality framework (Knowledge Delta, Mindset, Anti-Patterns, Specification Compliance, Progressive Disclosure, Freedom Calibration, Pattern Recognition, Practical Usability, Eval Validation). Performs duplication detection, generates remediation plans with T-shirt sizing, enforces CI quality gates, validates artifact conventions, tracks score trends, and provides a native eval runner with LLM-as-judge (BYOK, provider-agnostic). Use when evaluating skill quality, auditing SKILL.md files, scoring agent skills, generating remediation plans, detecting duplicate skills, validating skill format, enforcing quality gates, optimizing for A-grade publication, comparing audit baselines, batch skill assessments, or checking skill registry compliance. Triggers: 'check my skills', 'skill audit', 'improve my SKILL.md', 'quality check', 'A-grade scoring', 'quality gates', 'eval validation', 'audit all skills', 'remediation plan', 'skill judge', 'dimens
Capture Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) from .context/ plans, findings, and analyses. Extracts binding decisions into numbered ADRs under docs/ADR/, maintains a machine-readable index, and validates coverage. Use when creating or reviewing context files that contain decisions. DO NOT use for observational findings without decisions, retroactive documentation of long-settled decisions, or inline comments. Triggers: 'capture decision', 'create ADR', 'document decision', 'architectural decision', 'record decision as ADR', 'extract decisions', 'ADR review', 'index ADRs', 'check ADR coverage'.
Create a new .context/ file (plan, finding, or analysis) with standard YAML frontmatter. Use when documenting a decision, writing an implementation plan, recording research findings, or capturing analysis output. DO NOT use for ephemeral notes, secrets storage, or skill remediation plans (use skill-auditor remediate instead). Triggers: 'create a plan', 'new finding', 'document this', 'write analysis', 'new context file', 'capture findings', 'draft a plan', 'record decision'.
Regenerate .context/index.yaml from all .context/**/*.md frontmatter, and validate all files carry standard YAML frontmatter. Use when the index is stale, files were added or removed, or the pre-commit hook blocks on missing frontmatter. DO NOT use to create new context files (use context-file skill instead), to edit index.yaml by hand, or as a substitute for fixing frontmatter issues at the source. Triggers: 'update context index', 'regenerate index', 'context index stale', 'sync context', 'what context files exist', 'frontmatter missing', 'index .context'.
Review .context/plans/*.md files using 3 independent subagent reviewers: Technical (feasibility, gaps, soundness), Strategic (scope, alignment, priority), and Risk (blind spots, edge cases, failure modes). The skill FIRST asks the user which models to assign to each reviewer — presenting available options based on the user's environment (OpenCode Zen, Go, Claude Code, or BYOK). Each reviewer receives the same plan with a role-specific lens and returns structured feedback. The main agent consolidates all three perspectives. Triggers: 'review this plan', 'audit plan', 'plan review', 'check my plan', 'what's wrong with this plan', 'review all plans', 'plan quality check'. Do NOT use for plans not in .context/plans/, one-off notes, or external documents.
Assess whether an external GitHub repo, file, project fits the skill-quality-auditor project: what it actually is (not what its name implies); whether it overlaps existing capability (D1-D9 scorers, validate, duplication, eval runner, helper skills); whether it belongs in the Go CLI versus a helper skill; what is worth learning from even a rejected source; whether the project needs it. Ends by writing a house-standard FINDING, flagging any binding decision for ADR capture. Use when someone links an external repo, file, project asking whether it fits, whether we can learn from it, whether we need it. Do NOT use for reviewing internal code (use review-changes), scoring a SKILL.md (use skill-quality-auditor), doing web research (use deep-research). Triggers: 'does this repo fit', 'evaluate this project', 'assess this external repo', 'would this fit our project', 'can we learn from', 'is this worth adopting', 'fit assessment', 'should we import', 'should we port this'.
| name | code-quality-advisor |
| description | Evaluates code quality across a range of dimensions including readability, maintainability, and structural coherence. Provides actionable feedback to help developers improve their codebase through targeted suggestions and best practice guidance. |
| triggers | ["code review requested","quality check needed"] |
Apply this skill whenever you need an objective assessment of code quality. ALWAYS look beyond surface-level issues. NEVER ignore structural concerns in favor of style-only feedback.
BAD: Focusing only on formatting
# BAD — formatting is surface-level; structural issues matter more
black my_module.py
GOOD: Evaluate logical structure, responsibilities, and abstractions first.