code-quality-review
Review a task-owned diff for correctness, regression risk, and unnecessary complexity when a quality review is requested or called for by repository policy.
소스 정보
- 저장소
- bitsocialnet/5chan
- 최근 소스 활동
- 2026년 9월 23일 14:52
- 감지된 SKILL.md 언어
- 영어
- 스타
- 133
- 포크
- 15
설치 방법
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
소스 파일 검토
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
SKILL.md 표시 중
SKILL.md
소스 지침 · 읽기 전용 미리보기- name
- code-quality-review
- description
- Review a task-owned diff for correctness, regression risk, and unnecessary complexity when a quality review is requested or called for by repository policy.
# Code Quality Review
Review against the user's base, or the task's base branch plus its relevant staged, unstaged, and untracked changes. Preserve unrelated work. Read nearby source, changed tests, and applicable repository guidance before judging a hunk.
Focus on evidence-backed bugs, error paths, races, state consistency, trust boundaries, and concrete verification gaps. Challenge each finding against the implementation and intended behavior. Apply architecture and performance guidance only where the changed flow makes it relevant; when files or imports moved, run `yarn boundaries` instead of judging the module boundaries in `src/AGENTS.md` by eye.
For simplification, use the repository's solution ladder: remove unnecessary work, reuse existing code or platform facilities, and only then introduce new code. Do not trade away correctness, accessibility, validation, error handling, or useful tests. Preserve an unfamiliar guard or workaround until its purpose is understood.
Return actionable findings with file/line evidence, impact, how to show the failure (an input, test, or command) for a bug, and a practical correction, prioritized by risk. Skip tooling-handled style nits and speculative cleanup; if none remain, say so without a canned approval or publishing instruction.
A review-only request returns findings without edits. During an authorized implementation, apply high-confidence in-scope fixes without asking again for that authorization. This is an advisory pass, not an extra approval gate. Reuse verification evidence for the same final state; consult `docs/agent-playbooks/verification.md` only when a change or concrete uncertainty calls for more checks.
When a substantive review correction exposes a preventable mistake, use [retro](../retro/SKILL.md) to identify useful prevention. Keep review-only requests read-only and reuse existing coverage where sufficient.
For an explicitly scoped semantic second opinion, use [Jev diff review](../../../scripts/jev/review-README.md) via the repository root. Select only relevant changed files and rules; the helper is opt-in, sends selected content only with `--live`, and returns advisory issues or uncertainty. Keep deterministic lint/tests and independent review authoritative. Do not wire it into automatic edit, commit, or repair hooks.
GitHub에서 보기