Code Review Skills

Pragmatic coding standards - concise, direct, no over-engineering, no unnecessary comments

Use when working with code refactoring context restore

You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.

You are a technical debt expert specializing in identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing technical debt in software projects. Analyze the codebase to uncover debt, assess its impact, and create acti

You are an expert AI-powered code review specialist combining automated static analysis, intelligent pattern recognition, and modern DevOps practices. Leverage AI tools (GitHub Copilot, Qodo, GPT-5, C

Master effective code review practices to provide constructive feedback, catch bugs early, and foster knowledge sharing while maintaining team morale. Use when reviewing pull requests, establishing review standards, or mentoring developers.

Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code analysis, security vulnerabilities, performance optimization, and production reliability. Masters static analysis tools, security scanning, and configuration review with 2024/2025 best practices. Use PROACTIVELY for code quality assurance.

Code review guidelines covering quality, security, and best practices.

You are a technical debt expert specializing in identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing technical debt in software projects. Analyze the codebase to uncover debt, assess its impact, and create acti

You are a code refactoring expert specializing in clean code principles, SOLID design patterns, and modern software engineering best practices. Analyze and refactor the provided code to improve its quality, maintainability, and performance.

Professional code review with auto CHANGELOG generation, integrated with Codex AI

You are a PR optimization expert specializing in creating high-quality pull requests that facilitate efficient code reviews. Generate comprehensive PR descriptions, automate review processes, and ensure PRs follow best practices for clarity, size, and reviewability.

Write idiomatic C++ code with modern features, RAII, smart pointers, and STL algorithms. Handles templates, move semantics, and performance optimization. Use PROACTIVELY for C++ refactoring, memory safety, or complex C++ patterns.

Write idiomatic Elixir code with OTP patterns, supervision trees, and Phoenix LiveView. Masters concurrency, fault tolerance, and distributed systems. Use PROACTIVELY for Elixir refactoring, OTP design, or complex BEAM optimizations.

Expert in secure frontend coding practices specializing in XSS prevention, output sanitization, and client-side security patterns. Use PROACTIVELY for frontend security implementations or client-side security code reviews.

Orchestrate a comprehensive git workflow from code review through PR creation, leveraging specialized agents for quality assurance, testing, and deployment readiness. This workflow implements modern g

You are a PR optimization expert specializing in creating high-quality pull requests that facilitate efficient code reviews. Generate comprehensive PR descriptions, automate review processes, and ensu

> evaluating coupling between components, reviewing code modularity, deciding whether to split or merge modules/services, assessing integration patterns, classifying coupling as balanced or unbalanced, applying DDD strategic and tactical patterns, reasoning about cohesion vs coupling trade-offs, identifying distributed monolith risks, or explaining why a system is hard to change. Provides the three-dimensional framework (integration strength, distance, volatility) and the balance rule for making coupling decisions.

| Internal template for creating or refactoring a skill into the repository's reference-first shape.

Self-heal + report bugs to make the ecosystem better. When you hit ANY defect in comfyui-mcp / the sidebar panel, OR in a third-party custom node / ComfyUI core, use this: diagnose it, and for OUR repos (comfyui-mcp / comfyui-mcp-panel) **fix it locally FIRST** — patch the code where it actually runs so the user is unblocked immediately — then file a report that includes the diff, so reports arrive as near-PRs, not just tickets. (Attempt the fix exactly ONCE; if it's genuinely upstream-only, mark it and include the precise change needed.) Report it the right way: our intake Worker for our repos; the node's own GitHub for third-party. For OUR repos (artokun/comfyui-mcp, comfyui-mcp-panel, comfyui-mcp-issue-worker) act **autonomously** — fix-then-file and just inform the user, no per-step permission. For THIRD-PARTY / ComfyUI-core it is **offer-and-ask**: propose the workaround/report and act only with the user's go-ahead. **BETA — bias HARD toward fix-then-file (our repos):** trigger on any comfyui-mcp/panel defect you notice — an error, a crash, a tool that returns wrong/misleading/empty output, a silent failure, a confusing result, or a limitation that forced an awkward workaround — EVEN IF you recovered or worked around it. You do NOT need to be blocked. Also on "report this" / "fix this bug". If a future user would hit the same friction, fix-and-file it — the intake Worker dedupes, so over-reporting is cheap and under-reporting costs us the bug. THIRD-PARTY / ComfyUI-core bugs stay offer-and-ask.

Use this skill to teach Claude exactly which Kotlin and Compose changes hot-reload under Compose HotSwan and which trigger a full incremental rebuild fallback. Root cause is Android Runtime (ART) class schema immutability; only method bodies are mutable at runtime, so any change to fields, signatures, constructors, interfaces, inline functions, or new resource ids forces a rebuild. Covers the supported-changes table, the rebuild-forcing list, the diff-then-batch workflow that keeps a hot-reload session inside the fast path, and the inline-function and new-resource-id pitfalls. Trigger when the user asks "why did this rebuild?", "why isn't this hot reloading?", wants to learn HotSwan's boundaries before adopting it, or when reviewing a refactor that risks pushing a hot-reload session into a full rebuild.

Use this skill to keep Jetpack Compose state alive across HotSwan hot reloads by understanding the three escalating tiers Compose HotSwan uses (tier 1 targeted recomposition, tier 2 composition reset, tier 3 Activity.recreate) and choosing edits and state holders that stay inside tier 1 where scroll position, lazy items, dialog state, and per-composable remember values all survive. Explains which edits force escalation, which state holders survive each tier, and how to hoist transient UI state when the iteration loop must escalate. Use when the developer says "scroll jumped to top after a hot reload", "lost dialog state", "lazy column re-fetched", "tab selection reset", asks why HotSwan reload escalated to tier 2 or 3, plans a refactor and needs to know which scope it touches, or wants to know which state holders survive composition reset.

Use this skill to instrument a Jetpack Compose composable with `@TraceRecomposition` from `skydoves/compose-stability-analyzer` so per-recomposition diffs (which state or parameter changed, what value transition) print to logcat under the `Recomposition` tag. Works in release-with-debug-symbols builds where Android Studio Layout Inspector cannot reach, and feeds the IntelliJ / Android Studio plugin's live recomposition heatmap (green under 10, yellow 10–50, red 50+). Covers the Gradle plugin setup, the `ComposeStabilityAnalyzer.setEnabled(BuildConfig.DEBUG)` runtime gate that keeps the instrumentation out of production, and the handoff to debug-time Layout Inspector and CI `stabilityCheck`. Use when the user mentions `@TraceRecomposition`, "trace recomposition", "compose-stability-analyzer", "recomposition logcat", "recomposition heatmap", "release-mode recomposition counts", or needs to confirm a stability fix in a release-like build.

Use this skill to diagnose and fix Jetpack Compose Modifier ordering bugs — wrong paint region for background, wrong click area for clickable, wrong clipping for clip, wrong measurement for padding/size, surprising graphicsLayer scope. Covers the wrap-the-next-modifier mental model, the canonical pitfalls (padding vs background, clickable placement, clip before background, graphicsLayer placement), and why hoisting an entire Modifier chain via remember { Modifier.… } is rarely a real perf win because Compose already interns identical chains. Use when the developer asks "why does the click area extend past the visible button", "why is my background painted in the wrong place", "does Modifier order matter", "should I cache my Modifier chain", or reviews a diff that reorders modifiers.

Use this skill to author new custom Jetpack Compose modifiers and migrate legacy ones from Modifier.composed { } to Modifier.Node + ModifierNodeElement<T>. Covers the persistent-node lifecycle (onAttach, onDetach, onReset, coroutineScope), the specialized node interfaces (DrawModifierNode, LayoutModifierNode, SemanticsModifierNode, PointerInputModifierNode, CompositionLocalConsumerModifierNode, LayoutAwareModifierNode, GlobalPositionAwareModifierNode, ObserverModifierNode, DelegatingNode, TraversableNode), why ModifierNodeElement MUST be a data class for diffing, and the manual-invalidation knobs (invalidateDraw, invalidateMeasurement, invalidatePlacement, shouldAutoInvalidate). Use when the developer mentions Modifier.composed, custom modifier, ModifierNodeElement, Modifier.Node, "rewriting our drawBehind helper", node lifecycle, or sees Modifier.composed { } in a code review.

Address PR review feedback by systematically working through every unresolved PR review thread on the current branch's PR - analyze each comment, make the requested code changes (with tests where useful), commit, and optionally reply and resolve.

Bulk resolve unresolved PR review threads on the current branch’s PR — typically after threads have been addressed manually or via /pr-threads-address

Creates a pull request from current changes, monitors GitHub CI, and debugs any failures until CI passes. Activate when the user says "create pr", "make a pr", "open pull request", "submit pr", "pr for these changes", or wants to get their current work into a reviewable PR. Assumes the project uses git, is hosted on GitHub, and has GitHub Actions CI with automated checks (lint, build, tests, etc.). Does NOT merge - stops when CI passes and provides the PR link.

Conduct rigorous, adversarial code reviews with zero tolerance for mediocrity. Use when users ask to "critically review" my code or a PR, "critique my code", "find issues in my code", or "what's wrong with this code". Identifies security holes, lazy patterns, edge case failures, and bad practices across Python, R, JavaScript/TypeScript, SQL, and front-end code. Scrutinizes error handling, type safety, performance, accessibility, and code quality. Provides structured feedback with severity tiers (Blocking, Required, Suggestions) and specific, actionable recommendations.

Expert GDScript landmine guidance: static typing opcodes, signal-up/call-down, %UniqueName/@onready lifecycle, Callable bind/unbind, await sequences, typed collections, and safe Dictionary iteration. Use for code review, refactoring hot paths, or project standards. Trigger keywords: static_typing, signal_architecture, unique_nodes, @onready, class_name, signal_up_call_down, Callable.bind, typed_collections, await_sequence.

Expert blueprint for Godot 4 project organization (feature-based folders, naming conventions, version control). Enforces snake_case files, PascalCase nodes, %SceneUniqueNames, and .gitignore best practices. Use when starting new projects or refactoring structure. Keywords project organization, naming conventions, snake_case, PascalCase, feature-based, .gitignore, .gdignore.

> Technical leadership guidance for engineering teams, architecture decisions, and technology strategy. Use when assessing technical debt, scaling engineering teams, evaluating technologies, or making architecture decisions.

> Review REST API designs for quality, consistency, and breaking changes. Lints OpenAPI specs, generates scorecards, and detects breaking changes between versions. Use when designing APIs, reviewing contracts, or managing API versioning.

> Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, and Kotlin. Analyzes PRs for complexity, risk, SOLID violations, and code smells. Use when reviewing PRs, analyzing code quality, or generating review checklists.

> Systematic PR review with blast-radius analysis, security scanning, and breaking-change and test-coverage deltas. Use when reviewing PRs that touch shared libraries, APIs, database schemas, auth, or security-sensitive code.

> STRIDE threat modeling, DREAD risk scoring, secret detection, and secure architecture design. Use when conducting threat models, reviewing code for vulnerabilities, designing defense-in-depth, or scanning for hardcoded secrets.

> Scan codebases for technical debt with AST parsing, prioritize by impact, and generate trend dashboards. Use when tracking tech debt, prioritizing refactoring, calculating cost-of- delay, planning sprint debt, or reporting debt to execs.

> Author, lint, and publish skill packages that satisfy the library authoring standard. Use when creating a new skill, reviewing a skill PR, or fixing one that never activates.

> Convert markdown into a self-contained HTML slide deck with layouts, speaker notes, keyboard navigation, and a content-density linter. Use when building a deck from markdown, cutting an overloaded deck, or timing a talk.

This skill should be used when analyzing technical debt in a codebase, documenting code quality issues, creating technical debt registers, or assessing code maintainability. Use this for identifying code smells, architectural issues, dependency problems, missing documentation, security vulnerabilities, and creating comprehensive technical debt documentation.

This skill should be used only when the user explicitly asks to use `$ralph-specum-refactor`, or explicitly asks Ralph Specum in Codex to revise spec artifacts after implementation learnings.

Go platform/OS-specific code patterns for cross-platform projects. Use when writing or reviewing code that must work on multiple OSes (Linux, Windows), when you see noop stubs in _<os>.go files, runtime.GOOS checks, or OS-specific build tags. Supersedes generic Go guidance on build tags and OS-specific code. Trigger on any code that branches by operating system.

Go context propagation, goroutine lifecycle, and process shutdown discipline. Use when writing or reviewing code that spawns goroutines, manages process lifecycle, passes context through call chains, or handles graceful shutdown. Trigger on context.Background() outside of main/tests, fire-and-forget goroutines, custom exit channels where context would suffice, or missing context in function signatures. Also trigger when reviewing init/startup code that creates its own contexts instead of accepting one.

Go code design boundaries — behavioral configuration vs scenario coupling, side effects in functions, function parameter minimality, abstraction timing, control-loop hysteresis, validator purity, and preflight-before-mutation. Use when designing config-driven behavior, reviewing functions that accept whole structs when they need one field, refactoring code that branches on scenario names deep in the stack, stabilizing reconcile loops that request/release on every pass, separating validation from mutation, or evaluating whether a helper function or constructor adds value. Trigger on scenario names (Swift, MTPNC, overlay) appearing in low-level functions, validators that patch inputs while checking them, batch mutations that can partially apply before failing, functions mutating passed references instead of returning values, flapping threshold decisions in reconcile loops, or unnecessary abstractions.

Use when a complex or risky code change should be split into Kent Beck's two-step method by first making the change easy through behavior-preserving preparatory refactoring, then making the intended behavior change once the design supports it. This should trigger for requests such as Apply two-step change; Make this risky change safer; Refactor before changing behavior; Separate preparation from behavior change. Part of Plinth Toolkit

Use when Java design, refactoring, or implementation tradeoffs should be evaluated with Kent Beck's simple design rules, including passes the tests, reveals intention, has no duplication, and has the fewest elements. This should trigger for requests such as Apply simple design rules; Review this design with Beck's rules; Choose between these refactoring options; Keep this Java design simple. Part of Plinth Toolkit

Use when you need to review, improve, or refactor Java code for type design quality — including establishing clear type hierarchies, applying consistent naming conventions, eliminating primitive obsession with domain-specific value objects, leveraging generic type parameters, creating type-safe wrappers, designing fluent interfaces, ensuring precision-appropriate numeric types (BigDecimal for financial calculations), and improving type contrast through interfaces and method signature alignment. This should trigger for requests such as Review Java code for type design; Improve type design in Java code; Fix primitive obsession in Java code; Create value objects in Java code. Part of Plinth Toolkit

Use when you need to add or evaluate Maven dependencies that improve code quality or domain modeling — including nullness annotations (JSpecify), static analysis (Error Prone + NullAway), functional programming (VAVR), architecture testing (ArchUnit), or money and currency support (JavaMoney) — and want a consultative, question-driven approach that adds only what you actually need. This should trigger for requests such as Add Maven dependencies; Add JSpecify nullness dependencies; Add Error Prone NullAway dependencies; Add VAVR functional dependencies; Add ArchUnit architecture testing dependencies; Add JavaMoney dependencies. Part of Plinth Toolkit