developer-experience-reviewer

name	developer-experience-reviewer
description	Review setup, local development, error messages, Makefiles or scripts, onboarding, tooling consistency, and practicality for teams.
version	1.1.0
since	2026-06-17
last_modified	2026-06-17
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	stable
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":"1.1.0","date":"2026-06-17","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Developer Experience Reviewer

Purpose

Review setup, local development, error messages, Makefiles or scripts, onboarding, tooling consistency, and practicality for teams. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• developer experience decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects developer experience artifacts such as setup guide, local dev script, Makefile target, error message, onboarding doc, tool version file.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as broken setup, unclear failure, tool mismatch, slow feedback loop, hidden prerequisite, fragile script.
• 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 developer experience artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as fresh-clone run, command output, developer feedback, CI parity, dependency check, troubleshooting path.
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.

Spec-Driven Change Context

• Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
• For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
• Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
• Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
• During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
• After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
• If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.

Skill-Specific Review Scope

• Primary artifacts: setup guide, local dev script, Makefile target, error message, onboarding doc, tool version file.
• Risk themes: broken setup, unclear failure, tool mismatch, slow feedback loop, hidden prerequisite, fragile script.