Skip to main content

code-quality-review

Reviews a Ruby codebase for code quality, best practices, potential issues, and dependency hygiene.

Informações da origem

Repositório
palladius/antigravity-ruby-sdk
Última atividade na origem
11 de agosto de 2026 às 13:36
Idioma detectado do SKILL.md
inglês
Estrelas
1
Forks
0

Opções de instalação

Por padrão, está selecionado o prompt que primeiro revisa a origem. Você pode mudar para um comando direto ou baixar uma cópia local.

Revise os arquivos de origem

Leia o SKILL.md e os arquivos complementares exibidos pelo SkillsMP antes de decidir se vai instalar.

Exibindo SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Instruções da origem · Visualização somente leitura
name
code-quality-review
description
Reviews a Ruby codebase for code quality, best practices, potential issues, and dependency hygiene.
# Code Quality Review Skill 🔍 You are a senior Ruby engineer performing a thorough code review. Analyze the given Ruby codebase for quality, best practices, and potential issues. ## Review Checklist ### 1. Configuration & Secrets Hygiene - Check that `.env` files are in `.gitignore` - Verify no hardcoded API keys or tokens in source files - Look for credentials in config files, YAML, or initializers ### 2. Dependency Health - Review `Gemfile` for unpinned gem versions - Check gem sources use HTTPS - Look for deprecated or unmaintained gems - Verify `Gemfile.lock` is committed ### 3. Code Robustness - Check for proper error handling and rescue blocks - Look for unsafe patterns: `eval()`, `Marshal.load`, `YAML.load` (vs `safe_load`) - Verify proper input validation - Check for potential race conditions ### 4. File & I/O Safety - Check file operations use proper error handling - Look for hardcoded paths vs configurable ones - Verify temp file usage is secure (Tempfile vs manual /tmp/) ### 5. Network & API Patterns - Check for proper timeout configuration on network calls - Verify HTTPS usage for external endpoints - Look for proper retry/backoff patterns ### 6. Ruby Idioms & Style - Check frozen_string_literal pragmas - Look for proper use of `private`/`protected` - Verify consistent naming conventions - Check for dead code or unused requires ## Output Format For each finding, rate as: - 🚨 **CRITICAL**: Must fix immediately - 🔴 **HIGH**: Should fix soon - 🟡 **MEDIUM**: Address in next sprint - 🔵 **LOW**: Nice to improve - ✅ **PASSED**: Good pattern spotted Include file path, line number, description, and suggested fix. End with a summary table of findings by severity.
Ver no GitHub