Review or evaluate a specific function for quality, complexity, naming, testability, and hidden dependencies. Use after writing or before extracting a function. Ends with a recommendation to keep, refactor, or rename.
Installation
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Review or evaluate a specific function for quality, complexity, naming, testability, and hidden dependencies. Use after writing or before extracting a function. Ends with a recommendation to keep, refactor, or rename.
Reviewing a Function
When evaluating whether a function you implemented is good or not, walk this checklist in order. Stop at the first item that returns "yes — leave it alone."
Readability — Can you read the function and HONESTLY easily follow what it's doing? If yes, then stop here.
Cyclomatic complexity — Does the function have very high cyclomatic complexity? (Number of independent paths, or as a proxy, the depth of nested if/else.) If it does, it's probably sketchy.
Data structures — Are there any common data structures and algorithms that would make this function much easier to follow and more robust? Parsers, trees, stacks/queues, etc.
Unused parameters — Are there any unused parameters?
Type casts — Are there any unnecessary type casts that can be moved to function arguments?
Testability — Is the function easily testable without mocking core features (SQL queries, Redis, etc.)? If not, can it be tested as part of an integration test?
Hidden dependencies — Does it have any hidden untested dependencies, or any values that can be factored out into the arguments instead? Only care about non-trivial dependencies that can actually change or affect the function.
Naming — Brainstorm 3 better function names and see if the current name is the best, consistent with the rest of the codebase.
When NOT to extract a function
You SHOULD NOT refactor out a separate function unless there is a compelling need, such as:
The refactored function is used in more than one place, OR
The refactored function is easily unit testable while the original function is not, AND you can't test it any other way, OR
The original function is extremely hard to follow and you find yourself putting comments everywhere just to explain it.
Premature extraction creates noise and indirection without a payoff. Three similar lines is better than a premature abstraction (per O-7).
Output
End the review with one of:
Keep — function is fine; document why if non-obvious.
Rename to <x> — naming is the only issue.
Refactor — describe the specific change (split, inline, replace with pipe, etc.) and the reason.
