Code Review Skills

Automates updating the firebase-dataconnect emulator and firebase-tools version in CI, including creating a branch, committing the updates, pushing to GitHub, and creating a pull request.

Validate changes before submitting a pull request. Run comprehensive checks including lint, tests, alignment review, and RFC analysis. Use before creating a PR, when asked if code is ready for review, or before pushing for PR.

Refactor code after tests pass. The "Refactor" phase of Red-Green-Refactor.

Monitor a PR's CI checks and Greptile code review after submission. Polls CI status, auto-fixes failures via ralph-loop, waits for Greptile review, addresses comments, and iterates until green.

Use when asked to check for SASS (or PTX) changes between commits, branches, or a local changeset; guides normalization, comparison, and reporting of CUDA disassembly diffs.

Evaluate Expo skills in this repo end-to-end - trigger accuracy, generated code quality, and runtime screenshots on iOS simulator and Android emulator via Expo Go (web optional). Use when the user wants to eval an Expo skill, test that a skill produces working code, benchmark a skill with device screenshots, or verify a skill's output renders correctly.

Adversarial verification of finished work. Treats any "done" as a set of claims, then re-runs the claimed verifications, diffs what actually changed, detects weakened tests and false completion claims, and delivers an evidence-based verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH CAVEATS / REFUTED). Use after any agent or model claims work is complete - "/fable-judge", "judge this work", "verify what it did", "did that actually work?". Also runs the fable-method trap suite against a skill or model via "/fable-judge suite <target>".

>- Generate ONE reviewer-defensible, implementable research idea with a concrete method and falsification plan from a stated research direction. Use when the user asks for a research idea, novelty analysis, bottleneck diagnosis, or paper-shape suggestion. Skip code review, debugging, and unconstrained brainstorming without research context.

Reduce technical debt and improve code quality by systematically resolving static analysis warnings.

Perform a pedantic, multi-perspective code review on the current diff or git changes against the styleguide and software engineering best practices.

Use when configuring, running, or fixing PHPStan static analysis in WordPress projects (plugins/themes/sites): phpstan.neon setup, baselines, WordPress-specific typing, and handling third-party plugin classes.

Write readable, maintainable code through disciplined naming, small functions, and clean error handling. Use when the user mentions "clean up this code", "this function is too long", "code smells", "naming conventions", "boy scout rule", "single responsibility", or "unit test quality". Also trigger when reviewing a pull request for readability, untangling a messy function, debating comment styles, or improving error-handling patterns. Covers SRP, comment discipline, formatting, and unit testing. For refactoring techniques, see refactoring-patterns. For architecture and dependency rules, see clean-architecture.

Guided journey from a shipped app that works but feels rough to a product that fits the job, flows without friction, reads clearly, and persuades honestly. Orchestrates nine skills phase by phase - jobs-to-be-done, ux-heuristics, design-everyday-things, refactoring-ui, microinteractions, made-to-stick, influence-psychology, high-perf-browser, steve-jobs-design-review - asking the user questions at every decision point and recording results in the project docs/ folder (CUSTOMER.md, DESIGN.md, POSITIONING.md, IMPROVE-APP-PLAN.md) so the journey resumes across sessions. Use when the user wants to fix a clunky product, cut UX friction, sharpen in-app copy and prompts, or says ''the app works but feels rough''. Do not use for code, tests, or production hardening - use improve-code-quality (fresh prototype) or remove-technical-debt (aged codebase); no app yet, create-app; needs growth loops, grow-app; marketing-site friction, improve-website. For one framework in isolation, invoke that skill directly.

Guided journey from a working-but-untested vibe-coded prototype to a production-ready product with tests, clean structure, a business-rules boundary, and resilience at scale. Orchestrates nine skills phase by phase - working-with-legacy-code, clean-code, refactoring-patterns, software-design-philosophy, clean-architecture, pragmatic-programmer, release-it, system-design, ddia-systems - asking the user questions at every decision point and recording results in the project docs/ folder (TESTING.md, TECH-DEBT.md, RELIABILITY.md, IMPROVE-CODE-QUALITY-PLAN.md) so the journey resumes across sessions. Use when the user wants to harden an AI-generated prototype, add tests before refactoring, make code safe to change, or says ''this works on my machine but I am scared to touch it''. For a large aged codebase, use remove-technical-debt; to decide structure before building, use design-code-architecture; for a product and UX pass, use improve-app. For one framework in isolation, invoke that skill directly.

Design the small details -- triggers, rules, feedback, loops and modes -- that separate good products from great ones. Use when the user mentions "microinteraction", "button feedback", "loading state", "toggle design", "animation detail", "state transitions", "input feedback", "the interface feels dead", "make the UI feel responsive", or "add polish to interactions". Also trigger when designing form-validation responses, progress indicators, confirmation dialogs, or any element where the user expects immediate feedback. Covers trigger design, state rules, feedback mechanisms, and progressive loops. For overall UI polish, see refactoring-ui. For affordance design, see design-everyday-things.

Apply meta-principles of software craftsmanship: DRY, orthogonality, tracer bullets, and design by contract. Use when the user mentions "best practices", "pragmatic approach", "broken windows", "tracer bullet", "software craftsmanship", "avoid technical debt", "code ownership", or "how do I become a better developer". Also trigger when evaluating build-vs-buy decisions, designing estimation approaches, or choosing between reversible and irreversible architectural decisions. Covers estimation, domain languages, and reversibility. For code-level quality, see clean-code. For refactoring techniques, see refactoring-patterns.

Apply named refactoring transformations to improve code structure without changing behavior. Use when the user mentions "refactor this", "code smells", "extract method", "replace conditional", "technical debt", "move method", "inline variable", "decompose conditional", or "clean up this messy code". Also trigger when cleaning up legacy code, preparing code for new features by restructuring, or identifying which transformation fits a specific code smell. Covers smell-driven refactoring, safe transformation sequences, and testing guards. For code-quality foundations, see clean-code. For managing complexity, see software-design-philosophy.

Guided journey from a large aged codebase everyone fears to touch to one that is safe to change, legible, bounded, and resilient - paid down in place without a rewrite. Orchestrates eight skills phase by phase - working-with-legacy-code, refactoring-patterns, clean-code, software-design-philosophy, clean-architecture, pragmatic-programmer, release-it, domain-driven-design - asking the user questions at every decision point and recording results in the project docs/ folder (TESTING.md, TECH-DEBT.md, REMOVE-TECHNICAL-DEBT-PLAN.md) so the journey resumes across sessions. Use when the user wants to tame a legacy codebase, pay down technical debt safely, avoid a big-bang rewrite, or says ''we are afraid to touch this code''. For a fresh prototype or vibe-coded app going to production, use improve-code-quality; for greenfield structure, use design-code-architecture; for a product-and-UX pass rather than code-only, use improve-app. For one framework in isolation, invoke that skill directly.

Manage software complexity through deep modules, information hiding, and strategic programming. Use when the user mentions "module design", "API too complex", "shallow class", "complexity budget", "strategic vs tactical", "deep module", "information leakage", "pass-through method", "this code is over-engineered", or "simplify this design". Also trigger when reviewing an interface for simplicity, evaluating whether an abstraction is pulling its weight, deciding whether a comment is worth writing, or choosing between general-purpose and special-purpose approaches. Covers deep vs shallow modules, red flags for complexity, and comments as design documentation. For code quality, see clean-code. For architecture boundaries, see clean-architecture.

Review designs, products, and features with Steve Jobs'' standards: ruthless simplicity, focus, and end-to-end excellence. Use when the user mentions "Steve Jobs review", "design review", "product review", "what would Steve do", "insanely great", "this feels too complicated", "too many features", "product taste", "saying no", or "is this good enough to ship". Also trigger when critiquing a UI, feature, or roadmap for focus and simplicity, cutting scope to the essential, or pressure-testing the whole experience from first run to daily use. Covers the simplicity audit, the no list, design-is-how-it-works, end-to-end ownership, demo culture, and a Jobs-style review protocol with binary verdicts. For visual design fundamentals, see refactoring-ui. For usability audits, see ux-heuristics. For detail polish, see microinteractions.

Use before MR handoff or when reviewing DCGM Exporter changes.

Address PR review comments by fixing code, replying to each comment, and re-requesting review. Use this skill when the user wants to handle, fix, resolve, or address PR feedback, review comments, or code review suggestions. Also use when the user says things like "fix the PR comments", "handle review feedback", "address the review", or "respond to PR feedback".

AST-aware Java refactoring using OpenRewrite. Use when asked to structurally refactor Java code, change class names, change method signatures/overloads, replace builder patterns, modify annotations, or perform cross-file structural replacements. Note: Renaming fields or local variables/parameters is not supported natively via simple YAML recipes in the standard openrewrite modules.

Prepare a pull request by running presubmit with fixes. Use when preparing to commit or send a PR.

General workflow for fetching, inspecting, reviewing GitHub Pull Requests using the gh CLI, drafting user-aligned review comments, and securing approval before posting. Use when asked to review a GitHub PR or pull request.

DevTools repository-specific PR review workflow enforcing DevTools style guidelines and common review patterns. Use when reviewing pull requests in the flutter/devtools repository.

Use when building or maintaining a personal LLM-powered knowledge base. Triggers: ingesting sources into a wiki, querying wiki knowledge, linting wiki quality, 'add to wiki', 'what do I know about', or any mention of 'LLM wiki' or 'Karpathy wiki'.

> Use when writing or reviewing code that must work in both CMake Presets and Kits/Variants modes. Covers configure, build, test, environment, and generator

> Verify that a pull request into microsoft/vscode-cmake-tools meets contribution requirements. Use when preparing, reviewing, or finalizing a PR to check for a descriptive title, a meaningful description, a properly formatted CHANGELOG entry, code correctness, regression risks, adherence to existing patterns, and whether documentation updates are needed.

> Creates a validation project for testing a specific vscode-cmake-tools pull request. Use this skill when asked to create a validation project, test a PR, validate a pull request, or set up a PR validation environment. The skill creates a structured project directory with documentation, metadata, and checklists for systematically validating PR changes.

Drive a GitHub pull request through repeated rounds of Copilot code review until convergence. Use when the user asks to "request Copilot review", "run a Copilot review loop", iterate on Copilot feedback, or wants automated triage-and-respond on Copilot PR comments. Covers re-request mechanics, open-thread filtering, fix-vs-decline triage, reply-and-resolve, and end-of-loop cleanup.

Leverage OpenAI Codex/GPT models for autonomous code implementation, code review, and plan review. Triggers: "codex", "use gpt", "gpt-5", "let openai", "full-auto", "adversarial review", "second opinion review", "用codex", "让gpt实现", "对抗式审查", "让codex审查计划", "第二意见". Use this skill whenever the user wants to delegate coding tasks to OpenAI models, run code or plan reviews via codex, get a second-opinion review from a different model, or execute tasks in a sandboxed environment.

Review changes in clickhouse-java for correctness, compatibility, API stability, and missing tests. Use when reviewing pull requests, commits, diffs, patches, or when the user asks for a code review.

Diagnose Swift Concurrency issues, refactor callback-based code to async/await, and guide Swift 6 migration when working with tasks, actors, @MainActor, Sendable, data races, thread safety, or concurrency-related compiler and linter warnings.

GitHub patterns using gh CLI for pull requests, stacked PRs, code review, branching strategies, and repository automation. Use when working with GitHub PRs, merging strategies, or repository management tasks.

AI DevKit · Publish a ready feature branch for review. Use when the user wants to sync, push, and open or update a code review request on GitHub, GitLab, or another Git host.

AI DevKit · Final code review phase guidance for holistic pre-push review. Use when the user wants code review, final lifecycle review, design alignment checks, integration risk review, or dev-lifecycle phase 9.

AI DevKit · Analyze and simplify existing implementations to reduce complexity, improve maintainability, and enhance scalability. Use when users ask to simplify code, reduce complexity, refactor for readability, clean up implementations, improve maintainability, reduce technical debt, or make code easier to understand.

Advises on Unity gameplay and system architecture — module boundaries, decoupling, scene composition, SOLID structure, refactor direction. Use when planning how to organize code, splitting responsibilities, reducing coupling, or choosing a refactor direction, before writing structural code. 为 Unity 游戏与系统架构提供建议(模块边界、解耦、场景组织、SOLID、重构方向);当用户要规划代码结构、划分职责、降低耦合或决定重构方向时使用。

Advises on Unity gameplay script quality — code review, reducing coupling, improving maintainability, and refactoring. Use when reviewing code quality, untangling tightly-coupled scripts, or planning a refactor for maintainability, even if the user just says "看看我代码" or "代码有点乱". 为 Unity 游戏脚本质量提供建议(代码审查、降低耦合、提升可维护性、重构);当用户要审查代码质量、理顺高耦合脚本、或为可维护性规划重构时使用。

Create, read, and analyze C# scripts — create, read, replace, append, search, rename, move, and delete scripts, plus compile feedback. Use when authoring or editing C# code, searching across scripts, refactoring file layout, or checking compile errors, even if the user just says "写个脚本" or "改代码". 对 C# 脚本进行增删改查与分析(创建、读取、替换、追加、搜索、重命名、移动、删除脚本,以及编译反馈);当用户要编写或编辑 C# 代码、跨脚本搜索、重构文件布局、或检查编译错误时使用。

Reviews adk-bot pull requests by validating technical correctness against source code, checking PR states and formatting, and following Google's developer documentation style and ADK docs conventions. Triggers on "review bot PR", "check bot changes", or "verify bot issue".

Reviews an ADK integration documentation page (a Markdown file under docs/integrations/) or an integration pull request for correctness, structure, style, working code, valid links, and catalog conventions. Produces a prioritized review report, a recommended decision (approve, request changes, or close PR), a top-level review response, and draft line-anchored comments; only fixes issues when explicitly asked. Triggers on "integration-review", "review integration page", "review integration PR", "review this integration", "check integration docs".

Read-only R code review protocol for `.R` scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, tidyverse idioms, and professional standards; produces a report without editing. Use when user says "review this R script", "check the R code", "audit the analysis code", "code review on the R", or when an R file is touched as part of a paper submission. NOT for running the code — pair with `/audit-reproducibility` for numeric verification.

Performs a structured five-stage code review covering requirements compliance, correctness, code quality, testing, and security/performance. Each stage uses targeted checklists and categorized feedback (Blocker/Major/Minor/Nit) with actionable suggestions and rationale. Use when the user asks for code review, PR feedback, pull request review, or wants their code checked for bugs, style issues, or vulnerabilities — triggered by phrases like "review my code", "check this PR", "review my changes", "pull request review", or "code feedback".

Health-check your meeting knowledge for contradictions, stale commitments, and decision conflicts. Use when the user asks "any conflicts in my meetings", "check for stale action items", "lint my meetings", "consistency check", "are there contradictions", or wants to audit their decision history.

Health-check your meeting knowledge for contradictions, stale commitments, and decision conflicts. Use when the user asks "any conflicts in my meetings", "check for stale action items", "lint my meetings", "consistency check", "are there contradictions", or wants to audit their decision history.