java-reviewer

name	java-reviewer
description	Describe what this skill helps an agent do.
version	0.1.0
since	2026-08-29
last_modified	2026-08-29
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	experimental
min_platform_version	{"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"}
deprecated_since	null
replaces	null
supersedes	[]
changelog	[{"version":"0.1.0","date":"2026-08-29","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Java Reviewer

Purpose

Review Java code for Effective Java best practices, SOLID principles, idiomatic use of Streams, Optional, records, sealed classes, pattern matching, generics, exception handling, concurrency patterns, and JVM memory model correctness. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

Goal and behavioral contract

The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.

Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.

When to use

• Java development best practices decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects Java development best practices artifacts such as Java source file or diff, exception handling strategy, concurrency construct, generic type declaration, Stream or Optional usage, JVM configuration or tuning parameter.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as checked exception swallowed or wrapped without context, raw type or unchecked cast hiding type safety violation, mutable state shared across threads without synchronisation, Stream misuse causing unnecessary boxing or intermediate collection, Optional used as method parameter or field instead of return value, equals and hashCode contract broken causing incorrect Collection behaviour.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant Java development best practices artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as static analysis output from SpotBugs or ErrorProne, compiler warning on unchecked cast or raw type, concurrent test with race condition or deadlock detector, Stream pipeline profiling result, code review comment on Effective Java item, JVM heap or GC log.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.