Code Review Skills

Run an independent code review using the OpenAI Codex CLI in headless mode. Gets a second opinion from a different model family (the current Codex models) on recent changes, a PR, a commit, or the whole app — covering bugs, regressions, security, data consistency, UX/state bugs, performance risks, and testing gaps. Saves a severity-prioritised report to .jez/reviews/. Triggers: 'codex review', 'review with codex', 'independent code review', 'what does codex think', 'get codex to review'.

Audit and enforce the core/client boundary in multi-client projects. Detects where shared platform code is tangled with client-specific code, finds hardcoded client checks, config files that replace instead of merge, scattered client code, migration conflicts, and missing extension points. Produces a boundary map, violation report, and refactoring plan. Optionally generates FORK.md documentation and restructuring scripts. Triggers: 'fork discipline', 'check the boundary', 'is this core or client', 'platform audit', 'client separation', 'fork test', 'refactor for multi-client', 'clean up the fork'.

Address CI failures and unresolved review comments on a Helion pull request. Auto-activate when the user mentions a URL like https://github.com/pytorch/helion/pull/<number>.

Verify changes to the Helion CuTe backend by running both test suites, lint, and a code review subagent — then fix any issues found.

Use this skill when the user invokes /review-nvbench to review an NVBench pull request, PR branch, commit range, or diff. Supports context, feedback, and adversarial modes.

> Help the user turn their Retentioneering ideas, friction reports, bug capturing and validating the idea, through minimal reproductions and issue drafts, to preparing, testing, and submitting a pull request that follows this repository's conventions. Use when the user says they found a bug, wants a feature, wrote a workaround worth upstreaming, or asks how to contribute, open an issue, or make a PR to retentioneering-tools.

Audit and improve Jetpack Compose runtime performance from code review and architecture. Use when asked to diagnose slow rendering, janky scrolling, excessive recompositions, or performance issues in Compose UI.

Best practices for building UI with Jetpack Compose, focusing on state hoisting, detailed performance optimizations, and theming. Use this when writing or refactoring Composable functions.

**WORKFLOW SKILL** — Migrate an Azure resource group from legacy to hybrid versioning mode in ASO. USE FOR: moving a group (e.g., appconfiguration, cache, network) from VersionMigrationModeLegacy to VersionMigrationModeHybrid in the code generator, updating samples, renaming CRUD tests, and re-recording sample tests. DO NOT USE FOR: adding new resources (use new-resource.instructions.md), general debugging, or code review.

Use when receiving code review feedback before implementing suggestions, especially when feedback is unclear, risky, disputed, or technically questionable.

Use when requesting independent code review, after implementation slices, before merging high-risk work, or when verification exposes evidence, baseline, architecture, compatibility, or retirement uncertainty.

Check and fix formatting and other issues in markdown files using markdownlint-cli2.

> Run pre-commit checks for a specific set of crates. Use this when validating changes under sdk/cosmos before committing or during code review.

Quick automated lint — detects common design system violations in seconds

Review MATLAB code for quality, performance, maintainability, and adherence to MathWorks coding standards. Uses check_matlab_code and matlab_coding_guidelines. Use when reviewing code, checking style, finding code smells, assessing quality, or preparing code for handoff or publication.

Diff MATLAB settings between releases AND update any .m file that configures MATLAB settings to use the correct setting paths for the target release. Use when upgrading MATLAB releases and startup scripts or preference files need path/type updates for the new release.

Generate a MATLAB buildfile.m with tasks for static analysis, testing, coverage reporting, and packaging. Use after matlab-create-project when the project structure is in place and you need repeatable build automation.

Optimize RF PCB dimensions for bandwidth, return loss, or area via patternsearch and surrogateopt with constraints. TRIGGER: user asks to optimize an RF PCB component for performance (bandwidth, return loss, insertion loss, area) or apply constraints to a design. Invoke BEFORE writing optimization code — RF PCB Toolbox has a built-in optimize() function that differs from generic fmincon/ga approaches. SKIP: designing a component from scratch without an optimization objective (use the specific matlab-design-pcb-* skill), EM analysis without optimization (use matlab-analyze-em), material/stackup setup only (use matlab-manage-pcb-material).

Analyzes recently modified code and creates pull requests with simplifications that improve clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving functionality

Validate KQL (Kusto Query Language) files used in Azure Quick Review (azqr) against their recommendation definitions. Use when the user wants to validate KQL syntax, check semantic alignment with recommendations, verify property names against Azure REST API schemas, or audit KQL queries before a pull request. WHEN: "validate kql", "check kql files", "kql syntax error", "validate aks kql", "run kql validator", "validate azure resource graph queries", "check recommendations alignment", "validate kql for <service>".

Transform monolithic Terraform configurations into reusable, maintainable modules following HashiCorp's module design principles and community best practices.

| Style guidance for the written word. Use when asked to write code comments, commit messages, pull requests, READMEs, or documentation. Triggers might be phrases like "write a commit", "document this", or "add a README".

Describes how to write pull/merge requests. Use when asked to write or edit a pull request or merge request description. This skill is not relevant to commit messages.

>- Review a code diff / branch / PR for technical debt — code duplication, unnecessary complexity / over-engineering, and redundant or dead code. Use whenever the user wants a tech-debt, cleanup, or refactor review, asks to check a branch or PR for duplication / complexity / dead code before opening a PR, or behavior-preserving fixes; it never changes behavior.

>- Performance-overhead review of a code diff / branch / PR for the dd-trace-java tracer. Flags hot-path allocation, unbounded memory, repeated work, escaping objects, native-boundary crossings, and JVM-specific pitfalls (escape analysis, JNI / virtual-thread pinning, backtracking-regex ReDoS, varargs/boxing hashing, String.format, ByteBuddy-Advice anti-patterns) using the tracer performance rubric. Use whenever the user wants a performance / overhead / hot-path review, asks to check a diff or PR for allocation / GC / memory / latency / startup cost, or mentions the "perf rubric" or the "do no harm / assume hot" tracer posture — verify-first findings; it never edits code.

安全诊断并修复 ESLint error、warning 和配置兼容问题。用于用户要求运行 lint、解释 ESLint 报错、限定范围自动修复或迁移 ESLint 配置时；优先使用项目锁定的包管理器与版本，先预检再修改，不自动下载最新版或批量改写无关源码。

重构顾问 - 识别代码坏味道并提供重构方案

中文代码审查专家 - 生成详细的中文代码审查报告

>- Analyzes the repository's version control system (VCS) history to extract past vulnerabilities, security fixes, and vulnerability patterns. Use as an initial pre-processing step to build a historical vulnerabilities database (workspace/historical_learnings.jsonl) that informs subsequent stages about past issues and fixes. Don't use for code reviews, writing test scripts, or patching code.

>- Audits production source code files based on the strategy in workspace/plan.json. Use when a review plan exists and you need to perform static analysis and deep-dive reviews of targeted files. Don't use for planning, deduplicating, or writing patches.

Clean Code principles (DRY, KISS, YAGNI), naming conventions, function design, and refactoring. Use when user says "clean this code", "refactor", "improve readability", or when reviewing code quality.

Review Java concurrency code for thread safety, race conditions, deadlocks, and modern patterns (Virtual Threads, CompletableFuture, @Async). Use when user asks "check thread safety", "concurrency review", "async code review", or when reviewing multi-threaded code.

Systematic code review for Java with null safety, exception handling, concurrency, and performance checks. Use when user says "review code", "check this PR", "code review", or before merging changes.

SOLID principles checklist with Java examples. Use when reviewing classes, refactoring code, or when user asks about Single Responsibility, Open/Closed, Liskov, Interface Segregation, or Dependency Inversion.

Audit already-implemented Data warehouse import sources for endpoints, schemas, and tables the vendor's API offers but we never wired up. Use when asked whether a source is missing endpoints, to find new endpoints a vendor has added since a source was built, to refresh COVERAGE_GAPS.md, to prioritize which source to deepen next, or to check coverage before an integration review. Covers dumping our real endpoint inventory credential-free, ranking sources by production adoption, diffing against vendor OpenAPI/GraphQL specs, and recording findings. Not for implementing a source (use implementing-warehouse-sources), adding a vendor API version (warehouse-source-new-version), or writing source docs (documenting-warehouse-sources).

> Debugs failing GitHub Actions CI runs for PostHog PRs, commits, and branches, and answers broad CI-health questions ("is CI red?", "is master green today?", "what's broken right now?"). Use when the user asks why CI is red, asks for the current CI or master status, or mentions a failing check, GitHub Actions run, Depot runner, workflow, job, shard, flaky test, lint failure, typecheck failure, snapshot diff, migration check, generated types drift, or skills CI intelligence), then guides read-only inspection, failure classification, smallest local reproduction with hogli, and safe reporting without rerunning CI or posting to GitHub.

> PostHog developer CLI and repo tooling reference. Use when the user mentions hogli, asks about repo CLI tools, bin scripts, Makefiles, how to run/build/test/lint, or any dev environment commands.

Guides safe modification of the TaxonomicFilter — PostHog's multi-tab picker for events, actions, properties, cohorts, and more. Front-loads the empirical product reality (what users actually pick and search for) plus the three live variants (legacy-control, legacy-pill behind TAXONOMIC_FILTER_CATEGORY_DROPDOWN, and the opt-in rebuild menu behind TAXONOMIC_FILTER_MENU_REBUILD) so changes are judged against real behavior and mirrored across surfaces, not made against one arm in isolation. Use when adding features, fixing bugs, or refactoring TaxonomicFilter, the rebuild menu, or the headless filter panel.

> Multi-agent QA review team for code changes. This skill should be used when the user asks to "review my code", "run QA", "qa-team", "review this branch", "code review", "check my changes", or wants a comprehensive multi-perspective code review of the current branch's changes. Spawns parallel specialist agents (security, database, reliability, compatibility, data integrity, performance, frontend, copy) that independently review the diff and produce a converged report. Also includes two generalist reviewers for convergence validation.

> Internal PostHog developer frontend/browser QA skill. Use only when a PostHog developer explicitly asks to run frontend QA, browser-test a PR, verify a UI flow against the local PostHog stack, use qa-frontend, or QA current frontend changes with browser/runtime evidence. Do not use for generic code review, PR review, "check my changes", CI debugging, or security audit; use qa-team, debugging-ci-failures, or security-audit instead. Runs in PR mode or local mode, plans adaptive browser and visual checks, drives browser MCP/tooling such as Playwright MCP or Chrome DevTools MCP, captures evidence, and applies only approved/narrow fixes.

>- Delegate a coding task to the Google Antigravity CLI (`agy`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Antigravity or agy - phrasings like "have Antigravity do X", "delegate this to agy", "run it through agy", or "use Antigravity to implement/fix/refactor" - or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through agy while staying the reviewer. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

>- Delegate a coding task to the OpenAI Codex CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Codex — phrasings like "have Codex do X", "delegate this to Codex", "run it through Codex", or "use Codex to implement/fix/refactor" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Codex while staying the reviewer. Prefer it over a one-shot Codex forwarder (such as the codex-rescue agent) when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

>- Delegate a coding task to the Cursor Agent CLI (`cursor-agent`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Cursor — phrasings like "have Cursor implement X", "delegate this to Cursor", "run it through Cursor Agent", or "use Cursor to implement/fix/refactor" — or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through Cursor while staying the reviewer. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

>- Delegate a coding task to the Grok Build CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Grok — phrasings like "have Grok do X", "delegate this to Grok", "run it through Grok", "use Grok Build to implement/fix/refactor", or "have grok CLI do this" — or to run a queue of coding tasks through Grok while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

>- Delegate a coding task to the Kimi Code CLI (`kimi`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to Kimi - phrasings like "have Kimi implement X", "delegate this to Kimi", "run it through Kimi Code", or "use Kimi to implement/fix/refactor" - or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through Kimi while staying the reviewer. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

>- Delegate a coding task to the OpenCode CLI as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to hand implementation work to OpenCode — phrasings like "have OpenCode do X", "delegate this to OpenCode", "run it through OpenCode", or "use OpenCode to implement/fix/refactor" — or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through OpenCode while staying the reviewer. Prefer it when the user will review the diff and commit it themselves. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

>- Delegate a coding task to the Pi coding agent CLI (`pi`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user wants to delegate implementation work to Pi - phrasings like "have Pi implement X", "delegate this to pi", "run it through Pi", or "use pi to implement/fix/refactor" - or wants to run a queue of coding tasks through Pi while staying the reviewer. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants the code written directly without delegating.

>- Delegate a coding task to the Qoder CLI (`qodercli`) as a background implementer, then review its diff and land it yourself. Use this whenever the user asks to have Qoder implement, fix, refactor, or run a queue of coding tasks while the orchestrator remains the reviewer. DO NOT USE for tasks small enough to do inline, or when the user wants code written directly without delegation.