Code Review Skills

Language-agnostic workflow for code reviews and security audits using a Two-Axis (Standards vs Spec) approach against Clean Code/SOLID principles, generating formal refactoring plans.

Language-agnostic workflow for code reviews and security audits using a Two-Axis (Standards vs Spec) approach against Clean Code/SOLID principles, generating formal refactoring plans.

Language-agnostic workflow for code reviews and security audits using a Two-Axis (Standards vs Spec) approach against Clean Code/SOLID principles, generating formal refactoring plans.

Language-agnostic workflow for code reviews and security audits using a Two-Axis (Standards vs Spec) approach against Clean Code/SOLID principles, generating formal refactoring plans.

Language-agnostic workflow for code reviews and security audits using a Two-Axis (Standards vs Spec) approach against Clean Code/SOLID principles, generating formal refactoring plans.

Language-agnostic workflow for code reviews and security audits using a Two-Axis (Standards vs Spec) approach against Clean Code/SOLID principles, generating formal refactoring plans.

Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code to avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria.

Omni-expert principal software architect. Triggers on requests for app development, coding, refactoring, or architectural design. Enforces clean code, clean architecture, deep reasoning, mandatory testing, and strict anti-ambiguity protocols.

> Applies the "lazy senior developer" mindset. Use this skill whenever generating, modifying, reviewing code, or fixing bugs to prioritize code reuse, minimalism, YAGNI principles, and root-cause fixes. Supports for over-engineering review (ponytail-review), repo-wide audit (ponytail-audit), and debt tracking (ponytail-debt).

Language-agnostic workflow for code reviews and security audits using a Two-Axis (Standards vs Spec) approach against Clean Code/SOLID principles, generating formal refactoring plans.

Create a new implementation plan file for new features, refactoring existing code or upgrading packages, design, architecture or infrastructure.

Review and refactor code in your project according to defined instructions

Update an existing implementation plan file with new or update requirements to provide new features, refactoring existing code or upgrading packages, design, architecture or infrastructure.

Produce a Tech Debt Management Pack (debt register, scoring, refactor vs rewrite memo, paydown plan).

| Adversarial code review of server-side TypeScript for adherence to the kamae principles (discriminated unions, branded types, Result error handling, boundary validation, PII protection). involving domain models, repositories, use cases, business logic, or boundary code. unrelated to domain logic.

Create evidence explaining the actual implementation diff and its relationship to the predicted impact, closing the loop between pre-change prediction and post-change reality.

>- Bulk-regenerate broken test selectors after a UI refactor or redesign. Detects drift between old and new DOM with an aria-snapshot diff, maps old locators to new equivalents using role-first + region scoping, validates against the new build, and produces a single PR with grouped per-file selector updates and per-change evidence. Assumes Playwright >= 1.50 (trace viewer DOM-snapshot "redesign broke tests," "bulk update selectors," "regenerate selectors after after a framework switch (Selenium to Playwright) — use test-migration.

This skill should be used when writing Ruby gems following Andrew Kane's proven patterns and philosophy. It applies when creating new Ruby gems, refactoring existing gems, designing gem APIs, or when clean, minimal, production-ready Ruby library code is needed. Triggers on requests like "create a gem", "write a Ruby library", "design a gem API", or mentions of Andrew Kane's style.

Use this agent when reviewing code to ensure features are agent-native - that any action a user can take, an agent can also take, and anything a user can see, an agent can see. This enforces the principle that agents should have parity with users in capability and context. <example>Context: The user added a new feature to their application.\\nuser: \"I just implemented a new email filtering feature\"\\nassistant: \"I'll use the agent-native-reviewer to verify this feature is accessible to agents\"\\n<commentary>New features need agent-native review to ensure agents can also filter emails, not just humans through UI.</commentary></example><example>Context: The user created a new UI workflow.\\nuser: \"I added a multi-step wizard for creating reports\"\\nassistant: \"Let me check if this workflow is agent-native using the agent-native-reviewer\"\\n<commentary>UI workflows often miss agent accessibility - the reviewer checks for API/tool equivalents.</commentary></example>

Use this agent when you need to analyze code changes from an architectural perspective, evaluate system design decisions, or ensure that modifications align with established architectural patterns. This includes reviewing pull requests for architectural compliance, assessing the impact of new features on system structure, or validating that changes maintain proper component boundaries and design principles. <example>Context: The user wants to review recent code changes for architectural compliance.\\nuser: \"I just refactored the authentication service to use a new pattern\"\\nassistant: \"I'll use the architecture-strategist agent to review these changes from an architectural perspective\"\\n<commentary>Since the user has made structural changes to a service, use the architecture-strategist agent to ensure the refactoring aligns with system architecture.</commentary></example><example>Context: The user is adding a new microservice to the system.\\nuser: \"I've added a new notification service that integrates with...

Creates and reviews CLAUDE.md configuration files for Claude Code. Applies HumanLayer guidelines including instruction budgets (~50 user-level, ~100 project-level), WHAT/WHY/HOW framework, and progressive disclosure. Identifies anti-patterns like using Claude as a linter for style rules.

Use when designing software architecture, refactoring code structure, solving recurring design problems, or when code exhibits symptoms like tight coupling, rigid hierarchies, scattered responsibilities, or difficult-to-test components. Also use when choosing between architectural approaches or reviewing code for structural improvements.

This skill should be used when writing Ruby and Rails code in DHH's distinctive 37signals style. It applies when writing Ruby code, Rails applications, creating models, controllers, or any Ruby file. Triggers on Ruby/Rails code generation, refactoring requests, code review, or when the user mentions DHH, 37signals, Basecamp, HEY, or Campfire style. Embodies REST purity, fat models, thin controllers, Current attributes, Hotwire patterns, and the "clarity over cleverness" philosophy.

Use this agent when you need to review JavaScript or Stimulus frontend code changes with a special eye for race conditions. The agent should be invoked after implementing JavaScript features, modifying existing JavaScript code, or when creating or modifying Stimulus controllers. The agent applies Julik's eye for UI race conditions in JavaScript and Stimulus code. Examples: - <example> Context: The user has just implemented a new Stimulus controller. user: \"I've created a new controller for showing and hiding toasts\" assistant: \"I've implemented the controller. Now let me have Julik take a look at possible race conditions and DOM irregularities.\" <commentary> Since new Stimulus controller code was written, use the julik-frontend-races-reviewer agent to apply Julik's uncanny knowledge of UI data races and quality checks in JavaScript and Stimulus code. </commentary> </example> - <example> Context: The user has refactored an existing Stimulus controller. user: \"Please refactor the controller to slowly animate...

Use this agent when you need to review Rails code changes with an extremely high quality bar. This agent should be invoked after implementing features, modifying existing code, or creating new Rails components. The agent applies Kieran's strict Rails conventions and taste preferences to ensure code meets exceptional standards.\\n\\nExamples:\\n- <example>\\n Context: The user has just implemented a new controller action with turbo streams.\\n user: \"I've added a new update action to the posts controller\"\\n assistant: \"I've implemented the update action. Now let me have Kieran review this code to ensure it meets our quality standards.\"\\n <commentary>\\n Since new controller code was written, use the kieran-rails-reviewer agent to apply Kieran's strict Rails conventions and quality checks.\\n </commentary>\\n</example>\\n- <example>\\n Context: The user has refactored an existing service object.\\n user: \"Please refactor the EmailProcessor service to handle attachments\"\\n assistant: \"I've refactored the EmailProcessor...

Use this agent when you need to run linting and code quality checks on Ruby and ERB files. Run before pushing to origin.

Use this agent when you need to analyze code for design patterns, anti-patterns, naming conventions, and code duplication. This agent excels at identifying architectural patterns, detecting code smells, and ensuring consistency across the codebase. <example>Context: The user wants to analyze their codebase for patterns and potential issues.\\nuser: \"Can you check our codebase for design patterns and anti-patterns?\"\\nassistant: \"I'll use the pattern-recognition-specialist agent to analyze your codebase for patterns, anti-patterns, and code quality issues.\"\\n<commentary>Since the user is asking for pattern analysis and code quality review, use the Task tool to launch the pattern-recognition-specialist agent.</commentary></example><example>Context: After implementing a new feature, the user wants to ensure it follows established patterns.\\nuser: \"I just added a new service layer. Can we check if it follows our existing patterns?\"\\nassistant: \"Let me use the pattern-recognition-specialist agent to analyze the n...

Use this agent when you need to address comments on pull requests or code reviews by making the requested changes and reporting back on the resolution. This agent handles the full workflow of understanding the comment, implementing the fix, and providing a clear summary of what was done. <example>Context: A reviewer has left a comment on a pull request asking for a specific change to be made.user: \"The reviewer commented that we should add error handling to the payment processing method\"assistant: \"I'll use the pr-comment-resolver agent to address this comment by implementing the error handling and reporting back\"<commentary>Since there's a PR comment that needs to be addressed with code changes, use the pr-comment-resolver agent to handle the implementation and resolution.</commentary></example><example>Context: Multiple code review comments need to be addressed systematically.user: \"Can you fix the issues mentioned in the code review? They want better variable names and to extract the validation logic\"as...

Use when debugging TypeScript/JavaScript bugs by tracing call chains, understanding unfamiliar codebases quickly, making architectural decisions, or reviewing code quality. Extract function signatures and JSDoc without full file reads, trace call hierarchies up/down, detect code smells, and follow data flow. Triggers on debugging, understanding codebase, architectural analysis, signature extraction, call tracing.

Perform exhaustive code reviews using multi-agent analysis, ultra-thinking, and worktrees

>- Reviews repository diffs, PRs, codebases, and completed implementations for material, evidence-backed defects and plan compliance. Use this skill when asked to review, audit, critique, find code issues, or evaluate implemented plan work. Do not use for draft-plan review or implementation unless fixes are explicitly requested.

>- Runs a manually initiated explanation workflow that produces concise, evidence-grounded Markdown and standalone HTML for code, systems, data relationships, and prior plans, reviews, or agent statements. Use this skill when, and only when, the user explicitly invokes explain by name. Do not use for ordinary Q&A, implementation or fixes, performing a new code review, slide creation, exhaustive documentation, or render-only conversion of supplied Markdown.

>- Reviews proposed or existing work for unnecessary complexity and triages complexity-increasing recommendations without editing the reviewed targets. Use this skill when asked to simplify or decomplex source, tests, configuration, dependencies, plans, designs, or architecture; challenge over-engineering; audit unnecessary complexity; or triage recommendations that would add complexity. Do not use for general defect review, implementation or fixes, style-only cleanup, or conceptual explanations that need no durable review report.

> Forces Claude to match output scope exactly to what was requested. Triggers on any bounded coding request — "fix X", "add Y", "write a function/script that Z" — at the moment of writing cases, tests, docstrings, type annotations, CLI flags, config options, one-time abstractions, or refactors of surrounding code. Does NOT trigger when error handling, tests, or validation are the explicit subject of the request, or when the user asked for a complete or production-ready implementation. The best code is code you didn't write.

Detects code smells, anti-patterns, and debugging issues. Use when: fixing bugs, reviewing code quality, or refactoring.

Applies coding standards for clean, maintainable code. Use when: writing functions, handling errors, refactoring, or reviewing code style.

Complexity-management design principles — deep modules, information hiding and leakage, module boundaries, dependency direction, strategic vs. tactical tradeoffs. Triggered by planner-agent, plan-reviewer, implementer-agent, implementer-expert-agent, and code-reviewer before any design, implementation, or review work.

TDD cycle and code quality guardrails — failing-test-first, evidence, dependency, error-handling, and test-quality rules. Triggered by /speq-implement, implementer-agent, implementer-expert-agent, and code-reviewer before any implementation or review work.

Semantic code navigation and editing via Serena MCP — symbol-level tools preferred over grep/find/manual edits. Triggered by /speq-mission, /speq-implement, planner-agent, implementer-agent, implementer-expert-agent, code-reviewer, and recorder-agent.

Audit a speq project's health — spec-library structure, feature/decision-log/plan validation, mission-to-spec sync, unrecorded plans, and gitignore hygiene — then guide fixes. Use when the user asks to audit, health-check, doctor, lint, or sanity-check the specs or repo, or after cloning or inheriting a speq project.

Code review tag taxonomy and findings output format — guardrail violations, dead code, test quality, bad comments, optimizations, YAGNI/over-engineering, error handling, and design depth. Triggered by code-reviewer.

Orchestrate implementation of a reviewed plan: task breakdown, TDD sub-agents, code review, and verification report. Use when the user asks to implement, build, or execute a plan under specs/_plans/ — after /speq-plan, before /speq-record. Arg: <plan-name>.

Plan a feature or change through a clarifying interview, producing spec deltas, plan.md, and decision-log.md via planner-agent with adversarial review. Use when the user asks to plan, spec, design, or scope a new feature, a change or removal of existing behavior, a refactor, or a fix — before any implementation.

Debugging compiler errors and tracing lifetimes.

When the user wants backlink, referring-domain, anchor, link-quality, link-gap, link-intersect, anchor-diff, link-velocity, brand-mention, or competitor link-profile analysis for one target domain or URL.

When the user wants to ingest sources, change brain pages, register decisions, catalog content publications, or lint brain pages for provenance and link integrity.

>- before starting a new phase, when vision drift is suspected, or every 3-5 sessions. Triggers include user saying retro, run a retro, since-last-retro; asks to analyze patterns, recurring mistakes, or correction trends across multiple sessions; says how did we get here or project history in a project-arc context (not single-file diffs or README edits); or notes that MEMORY.md has drifted from what actually happened across sessions. NOT for single-session review, MEMORY.md cleanup, retro templates, or git-level file diffs.

Delphi code review checklist — quality, security, performance, SOLID, memory