| name | discuss-code |
| description | Discuss code critically before or instead of editing. Use when user asks for a compact opinion on code, a diff, snippet, design, naming, logic, simplicity, structure, or maintainability, and wants findings plus smallest useful fixes. For formal risk-ranked pull request review use code-reviewer; for architecture candidates use architecture-review; for actual cleanup edits use code-simplifier or refactoring. |
Discuss Code
Review code critically.
Focus on real issues.
Keep output compact.
When to use
- User asks to review code, diff, snippet, or design.
- Code may have logic, naming, structure, or maintainability issues.
- User wants discussion before or instead of edits.
Goal
- Find concrete problems.
- Explain impact plainly.
- Suggest smallest useful fix.
- Avoid praise unless there are no findings.
Rules
- Findings first.
- Highest impact first.
- Max 5 findings.
- No speculative issues without evidence.
- Reference file and line when possible.
- Show code only when it clarifies fix.
Check
- Correctness.
- Unneeded logic.
- Duplication.
- Weak abstraction.
- Nesting and complexity.
- Naming.
- Dead code.
- Missed simple pattern.
Flow
- Read user-provided code or target.
- Identify behavior and intent.
- Check for bugs and maintainability risks.
- Rank findings by impact.
- Suggest minimal fixes.
Output
Verdict: good | mixed | bad
## Finding N: short title
What: concrete issue
Why: impact or risk
Suggestion: smallest useful fix
Reference: `file:line` or snippet
If no findings:
Verdict: good
No findings.
Residual risk: [missing context or test gap]
Related skills
code-architecture-wrong-abstractiontypescript-best-practicesreact-useeffect-avoidnaming-cheatsheet
