2 028 code review skills from 387 authors. They read someone else's code and work through changes before those land. Half of them fit into 1 567 tokens or less — that is what one costs your context window when the agent loads it. 210 ship runnable scripts rather than instructions alone. 3 of them cannot work without an MCP server, most often rube. We also found 250 copies of these same skills sitting in other people's repositories — counted once here, not 250 times.
2 028 unique 387 authors 1 258 updated this month 273 from vendors
Use when Agent needs to use the `specdd` CLI for setup, updates, spec discovery, inspection, or linting.
Use when Agent needs to refactor code, tests, docs, specs, or project structure while preserving active SpecDD behavior.
Code review and validation for CloudBase projects. After writing code for Web / miniprogram / CloudRun / cloud-function projects, call this skill to check for known pitfalls — auth guard misuse, missing database tables, RLS misconfiguration, storage domain setup, and SDK API misuse. Supports automated lint scripts (regex-based) + LLM semantic review.
Review WooCommerce code changes for coding standards compliance. Use when reviewing code locally, performing automated PR reviews, or checking code quality.
Run tests, linting, and quality checks for WooCommerce development. Use when running tests, fixing code style, or following the development workflow.
自动代码审查 — PR代码→安全扫描+性能分析+最佳实践建议+评审报告
Run AI-powered code review using the codex CLI. Use when the user asks to \"codex review\", \"run codex review\", or \"review a commit with codex\".
Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, and architecture rot. Ranks findings by impact and refactor effort into a report at .turbo/technical-debt.md. Use when the user asks to \"assess technical debt\", \"find technical debt\", \"review technical debt\", \"what should we refactor\", \"find refactoring candidates\", \"where is the code rot\", or \"what's our worst code\". Analysis-only — does not modify code.
Shared commit message rules and technical constraints referenced by /stage-commit and /commit-staged. Not typically invoked directly.
Create a GitHub pull request with a drafted title and description. Use when the user asks to \"create a PR\", \"create a pull request\", \"open a PR\", or \"submit a PR\".
Critically assess external feedback (code reviews, AI reviewers, PR comments) and decide which suggestions to apply using adversarial verification. Use when the user asks to \"evaluate findings\", \"assess review comments\", \"triage review feedback\", \"evaluate review output\", or \"filter false positives\".
Stage, format, lint, test, review, smoke test, and re-run itself until stable. Use when the user asks to \"polish code\", \"refine code\", \"iterate on code quality\", \"review loop\", \"clean up, test, and review loop\", or \"run the polish loop\".
Draft, confirm, and post replies to GitHub PR review threads. Handles per-category reply formatting, re-fetches thread resolution state so auto-resolved threads are skipped, and posts via GraphQL. Use when the user asks to \"reply to PR threads\", \"post PR thread replies\", or \"draft PR reply messages\".
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using reasoning recalled from past Claude Code transcripts). Use when the user asks to \"resolve PR comments\", \"fix review comments\", \"address PR feedback\", \"handle review comments\", \"address review feedback\", \"respond to PR comments\", \"answer review questions\", or \"address code review\".
Review a pull request by fetching PR comments, running a comprehensive code review, evaluating findings, and dispatching to implementation. Use when the user asks to \"review PR\", \"review pull request\", \"review this PR\", \"check PR before merging\", or \"full PR review\".
Run a multi-agent review of changed files for scope, reuse, quality, efficiency, clarity, and altitude issues followed by automated fixes. Use when the user asks to \"simplify code\", \"review changed code\", \"check for code reuse\", \"review code quality\", \"review efficiency\", \"simplify changes\", \"clean up code\", \"refactor changes\", or \"run simplify\".
Update an existing GitHub pull request's title and description to reflect the current state of the branch. Use when the user asks to \"update the PR\", \"update PR description\", \"update PR title\", \"refresh PR description\", or \"sync PR with changes\".
Assess project-wide structural technical debt: complexity hotspots, deprecated API usage, duplication clusters, and architecture rot. Ranks findings by impact and refactor effort into a report at .turbo/technical-debt.md. Use when the user asks to \"assess technical debt\", \"find technical debt\", \"review technical debt\", \"what should we refactor\", \"find refactoring candidates\", \"where is the code rot\", or \"what's our worst code\". Analysis-only — does not modify code.
Shared commit message rules and technical constraints referenced by $stage-commit and $commit-staged. Not typically invoked directly.
Create a GitHub pull request with a drafted title and description. Use when the user asks to \"create a PR\", \"create a pull request\", \"open a PR\", or \"submit a PR\".
Critically assess external feedback (code reviews, AI reviewers, PR comments) and decide which suggestions to apply using adversarial verification. Use when the user asks to \"evaluate findings\", \"assess review comments\", \"triage review feedback\", \"evaluate review output\", or \"filter false positives\".
Stage, format, lint, test, review, smoke test, and re-run itself until stable. Use when the user asks to \"polish code\", \"refine code\", \"iterate on code quality\", \"review loop\", \"clean up, test, and review loop\", or \"run the polish loop\".
Recall the reasoning behind a past change from Codex session history when available, falling back to commit diff and surrounding code. Use when the user asks to \"recall reasoning\", \"find reasoning\", \"look up reasoning\", \"recall implementation reasoning\", \"find the rationale\", \"why did I do X\", \"recall from transcripts\", or \"find the transcript for this commit\".
Draft, confirm, and post replies to GitHub PR review threads. Handles per-category reply formatting, re-fetches thread resolution state so auto-resolved threads are skipped, and posts via GraphQL. Use when the user asks to \"reply to PR threads\", \"post PR thread replies\", or \"draft PR reply messages\".
Evaluate, fix, answer, and reply to GitHub pull request review comments and conversation comments. Handles both change requests (fix or skip) and reviewer questions (explain using reasoning recalled from past Codex session history). Use when the user asks to \"resolve PR comments\", \"fix review comments\", \"address PR feedback\", \"handle review comments\", \"address review feedback\", \"respond to PR comments\", \"answer review questions\", or \"address code review\".
Review a pull request by fetching PR comments, running a comprehensive code review, evaluating findings, and dispatching to implementation. Use when the user asks to \"review PR\", \"review pull request\", \"review this PR\", \"check PR before merging\", or \"full PR review\".
Run a multi-agent review of changed files for scope, reuse, quality, efficiency, clarity, and altitude issues followed by automated fixes. Use when the user asks to \"simplify code\", \"review changed code\", \"check for code reuse\", \"review code quality\", \"review efficiency\", \"simplify changes\", \"clean up code\", \"refactor changes\", or \"run simplify\".
Update an existing GitHub pull request's title and description to reflect the current state of the branch. Use when the user asks to \"update the PR\", \"update PR description\", \"update PR title\", \"refresh PR description\", or \"sync PR with changes\".
Use this skill when working with the UI5 Linter (@ui5/linter) for static code analysis of SAPUI5/OpenUI5 applications and libraries. Covers setup, configuring linting rules, running the linter to detect deprecated APIs, global variable usage, CSP violations, and manifest issues. Supports autofix for deprecated API usage, global references, event handlers, and manifest properties. Includes CI/CD integration, pre-commit hooks, and UI5 2.x migration preparation.
Use the Claude Code CLI to consult Claude and delegate coding tasks for prototyping, debugging, and code review. Supports multi-turn sessions via SESSION_ID. Optimized for low-token, file/line-based handoff.
Use the Gemini CLI to consult Gemini and delegate coding tasks for prototyping, debugging, and code review. Supports multi-turn sessions via SESSION_ID. Optimized for low-token, file/line-based handoff.
>- Generate and analyze a diff between two Windows versions (or two patch levels of one version) for security research, using the WinDiff CLI in this repo. Use this whenever the user wants to compare Windows builds to find what Microsoft changed between versions — new or removed syscalls, new exported/internal kernel routines, added structures or struct fields, new security mitigation flags (process/thread mitigations, CFG/CET/XFG, Code Integrity / ci.dll, kCET, win32k lockdown), AND any surface (Ps/Ob/Cm callbacks, ETW providers and the EtwTi threat-intel channel, minifilter/altitude hooks), new telemetry, ELAM/AMSI/PPL/anti-tamper changes, and brand-new drivers or modules. Frame findings for three audiences — anti-malware / EDR developers, anti-cheat developers, and vulnerability researchers. Triggers on requests like "diff ntoskrnl between 21H2 and 23H2", "what new syscalls were added in 24H2", "what changed in win32k.sys / ci.dll between these builds", "find new mitigation flags", "what new ETW providers or kernel callbacks appeared", "what's new that matters for EDR / anti-cheat", or "analyze the attack surface added in this Windows update". The analysis must interpret the raw diff with Windows internals knowledge (Nt/Zw/Ps/Ke/Mm/Ob/Se/Cm/Etw/Ci prefixes, the roles of ntoskrnl.exe, ntdll.dll, win32k*.sys, ci.dll, cng.sys) to explain the likely intent and security relevance of each change, not just list symbols.
PavedPath Code is the code-focused edition of PavedPath. It helps agents solve software engineering problems by finding proven implementation paths from GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, discussions, code examples, release notes, and open-source evidence.
Decides when quality matters vs move fast, based on Dylan Field (Figma) craft philosophy and Brian Chesky (Airbnb) details obsession. Use when balancing shipping speed with excellence, deciding if refactoring is needed, or determining which details create moats vs which to skip.
Guides "ship or iterate?" decisions using Shreyas Doshi's frameworks, Marty Cagan's shipping philosophy, and Tobi Lutke's reversible decision-making. Use when deciding if feature is ready, preventing perfectionism paralysis, applying one-way vs two-way door thinking, or balancing technical debt vs shipping speed.
提供专业的代码审查服务，检查代码质量、安全漏洞、性能问题和最佳实践。支持多种编程语言和框架。
Code quality review for WinUI 3 apps — MVVM compliance, x:Bind correctness, accessibility, theming, security, and performance. Use before committing to catch issues that the compiler and UI tests won't find.
Git best practices, branching strategies, commit conventions, and code review patterns
Systematic code review methodology, PR checklist, feedback techniques, and review automation patterns
Systematic refactoring techniques, code smell elimination, pattern extraction, and legacy modernization
Orchestrate coding work by delegating well-specified implementation tasks to xAI's Grok Build CLI (grok) running headlessly, while the coding assistant plans, writes the task specs, reviews every diff, and owns the result. Use when user says: 'use grok', 'grok build', 'delegate to grok', 'have grok implement', 'have grok execute', 'have grok build', 'send to grok', 'execute this plan with grok'. Executes a Markdown implementation plan task-by-task, or ad-hoc tasks with an inline spec.
Delegate coding tasks to Google Jules AI agent for asynchronous execution. Use when user says: 'have Jules fix', 'delegate to Jules', 'send to Jules', 'ask Jules to', 'check Jules sessions', 'pull Jules results', 'jules add tests', 'jules add docs', 'jules review pr'. Handles: bug fixes, documentation, features, tests, refactoring, code reviews. Works with GitHub repos, creates PRs.
Triggered when the user submits code or requests a comprehensive code quality analysis. Automatically performs static analysis, code review, and quality scoring. Analysis covers coding standards, potential bugs, performance issues, and security vulnerabilities. Trigger phrases include "analyze code quality", "comprehensive check", "code score".
Reviews code and provides detailed quality assessment
Triggered when the user submits code or requests a code review. Automatically analyzes code quality, identifies potential bugs, security vulnerabilities, and performance issues, and provides improvement suggestions. Trigger phrases include "take a look at this code", "review this", "is there a problem with this function".
Debug continuous behavior in WebXR scenes — physics, animations, collisions, game loops, or any real-time interaction that happens too fast for an agent to observe. Uses ECS pause/step/snapshot/diff to freeze time and inspect state frame by frame.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements