Code Review Skills

Pragmatic clean code standards for Delphi — concise, direct, no over-engineering

Refactoring techniques for Object Pascal focused on improving readability, removing code smells, and preserving behavior through practices like Extract Method, Guard Clauses, and polymorphism.

Pragmatic clean code standards for Delphi — concise, direct, no over-engineering

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

Refactoring techniques for Object Pascal: Extract Method, Extract Class, Guard Clauses, Replace Magic Numbers, Replace Conditional with Polymorphism, Introduce Parameter Object, Remove With, Extract Interface. Always focusing on maintaining behavior and improving readability.

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements - reviews implementation against plan or requirements with severity分级（Critical/Important/Minor）. NO MERGE WITHOUT CODE REVIEW FIRST.

Git 工作流专家。规范化版本控制，确保提交历史清晰可追溯。支持 Conventional Commits 规范、Pull Request 最佳实践、分支管理策略和自动化工作流。

Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks - dispatches fresh subagent for each task with code review between tasks, enabling fast iteration with quality gates. Supports orchestrator, peer-to-peer, and pipeline coordination modes.

当用户明确要求“review 某个 GitHub PR”“评估某个 pull request 是否值得 merge”“帮我判断这个 PR 怎么处理”时使用。基于用户提供的 GitHub 仓库地址、PR 编号/链接和补充说明，进行只读、证据驱动的 PR 审查：理解 PR 解决的问题、评估方案优劣与局限、默认优先使用内置“好 PR”标准并在必要时联网补充、识别恶意或高风险改动，并输出是否建议 merge 的 Markdown 决策报告。⚠️ 不适用：用户要你直接修改 PR 代码、直接 merge PR、或在本地执行 PR 分支中的不可信代码。

Phase-1 Layer-0 of the comic-author suite — turn ANY raw idea / a locked video skeleton / an audience note into ONE schema-valid intent_spec node that fixes the logline (an editorial climax), the tagline, and the named DUAL-IDENTITY design constraint the whole comic optimizes against. Codex-as-parser (raw bytes + schema, never Claude's gloss) + reviewer-independence + banned-vocab lint + confidence-gated under_review routing + a HARD user-approval gate. It NEVER invents panels, assets, or storyboard detail, and NEVER silently defaults — every assumption becomes an uncertainties[] entry. Use it whenever a comic starts from a fuzzy brief and you need a locked, auditable premise before outlining.

Phase-1 (S2) of the comic-author suite — compile the project's ART_BIBLE.md into an EXECUTABLE convergence target, not aesthetic prose. The bible is the ONE visual dialect read verbatim into every bake prompt AND into every visual reviewer's rubric (`style_consistency`/`identity_consistency` literally = 'conforms to this file'). A `bootstrap` parses the bible into immutable per-dimension `style_anchor` wiki nodes (palette / line / shading / two-world warm-vs-cyber lighting / identity-lock / per-world STYLE_PREFIX / text-mode / forbidden / by-design exceptions); a deterministic `validate` lints candidate authoring text against the FORBIDDEN list + identity-lock + world-mismatch; an append-only `update` Gemini-harvests recurring drift from KEEP panels into by-design exceptions. Auto-bootstrap if the bible is missing; otherwise LEAVE LOCKED. Locked anchors are immutable — pivoting the style = a fresh project, never an in-place edit.

Find bugs, security vulnerabilities, and code quality issues in local branch changes. Use when asked to review changes, find bugs, security review, or audit code on the current branch.

Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality. Use when asked to "simplify code", "clean up code", "refactor for clarity", "improve readability", or review recently modified code for elegance. Focuses on project-specific best practices.

Use when given a detailed implementation plan from a frontier AI to execute inside OpenCode with non-frontier coding models. Validates the plan against the real repository, breaks it into safe steps, verifies each step, inspects diffs, and prevents destructive changes. Triggers on: receiving a multi-step plan from Claude Opus/GPT-5/etc., executing a pre-written spec, implementing a detailed PR description, or being told to \"execute this plan step by step.\

>- Review code for best practices, potential bugs, and improvements. Use when asked to review, analyze, or critique code quality.

Use Tokenless for large files and noisy tool outputs before they enter context. Must be used when commands, Read output, diffs, logs, or search results are large.

Reference documents for deep code review (Level 3) and architecture review (Level 4). Used by code-reviewer agent for advanced review levels.

Build and operation support for n8n-cli. Guides remote status checks, imports, dry-runs, apply, and linter execution. Auto-build recommended for new sessions.

Perform comprehensive code reviews using OpenAI Codex CLI. This skill should be used when users request code reviews, want to analyze diffs/PRs, need security audits, performance analysis, or want automated code quality feedback. Supports reviewing staged changes, specific files, entire directories, or git diffs.

Implementation skill for BMAD. Use for bmad:dev-story and bmad:code-review to deliver tested code from story specs.

Secure AI coding agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Copilot) with permission boundaries, secret protection, code review gates, and safe sandbox configurations for team environments.

Check and improve ABAP code quality using abaplint and Clean ABAP principles. Use this skill when users ask to check, lint, validate, review, or analyze ABAP code for syntax errors, clean code compliance, code quality, best practices, or adherence to Clean ABAP guidelines. Also use when users ask to set up abaplint, configure abaplint.json, or run abaplint on their ABAP project. Triggers include requests like "check this ABAP code", "lint my ABAP", "run abaplint", "configure abaplint", "is this clean ABAP", "review my ABAP", or "analyze ABAP code quality".

Check ABAP code for compliance with Clean ABAP principles. Use this skill when users ask to check, validate, review, or analyze ABAP code for clean code compliance, code quality, best practices, or adherence to Clean ABAP guidelines. Triggers include requests like "check this ABAP code", "is this clean ABAP", "review my ABAP for clean code", "validate ABAP against clean code principles", or "analyze ABAP code quality".

Execute and monitor malware in controlled sandbox environments. Use when you need to observe runtime behavior, capture network traffic, monitor process activity, analyze file/registry changes, or understand actual malware functionality beyond static analysis. Guides safe execution with Procmon, Wireshark, Process Hacker (now System Informer), Sysmon, and automated sandboxes.

Verify code quality including naming conventions, organization, documentation, and general best practices. Use when asked to "verify quality", "check code quality", or "review code organization".

PR review, code smell detection, best practice kontrolü. ⚠️ Kod incelerken kullan. Deliverable kontrolü için → quality-validator, doküman review için → peer-review.

Akademik/teknik doküman review, methodology değerlendirme. ⚠️ Doküman/araştırma için kullan. Kod review için → code-review.

Ship öncesi son kontrol, deliverable validation, compliance. ⚠️ Son kalite kontrolü için kullan. Kod inceleme için → code-review.

Common refactoring patterns - Extract, Rename, Move ve code smell çözümleri.

Safe refactoring süreci - test-first, incremental changes ve güvenlik ağı.

Draft a commit message strictly for the work done in THIS session, identifying exactly which files belong in the commit. Ignores pre-existing dirty files.

Draft git commit messages. Use when asked to create, draft, or prepare a commit message. Analyzes staged/unstaged changes and recent history to match project style.

Senior Staff Engineer code review with SOLID principles, security analysis, and architecture critique. Use for significant changes, new systems, or when you want ruthless technical feedback.

Generate HTML artifacts for code review, PR explanation, and codebase understanding — rendered diffs with inline annotations, severity-coded findings, refactor risk maps, before/after migration views, and subsystem walkthroughs. Use whenever the user wants to review, explain, or understand a PR, refactor, codebase area, or subsystem — especially before merging, when onboarding others to a change, or when the GitHub diff view doesn't show enough context. Default to attaching an HTML explainer to every non-trivial PR.

Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.

Get Google Antigravity's (`agy`) code review of git changes after Claude makes edits. Trigger when user wants a second opinion on code changes ("have agy review my changes", "get code review from Google Antigravity", "review this diff with agy"), or as a final check before committing. Replaces the deprecated gemini-cli diff-review workflow.

Get Codex's code review of git changes via the Codex MCP server. Trigger when user wants a second opinion on code changes ("have Codex review my changes", "get code review from Codex", "review this diff with Codex"), or as a final check before committing.

Get Gemini's code review of git changes after Claude makes edits. Trigger when user wants a second opinion on code changes ("have Gemini review my changes", "get code review from Gemini", "review this diff"), or as a final check before committing.

Pull request operations using GitHub CLI. Trigger when user wants to list PRs ("show open PRs"), view PR details ("view PR 123"), create PRs ("create a pull request"), review/merge PRs ("merge PR", "approve PR"), or view PR diffs ("show PR diff", "what files changed in PR").

Stacked pull requests with the GitHub CLI `gh stack` extension. Trigger whenever the user wants to split a large branch or change into a chain of dependent PRs ("stack this into smaller PRs", "split this into a stack", "create a stacked PR", "break this feature into reviewable layers"), or manage an existing stack ("add a layer on top", "rebase my stack", "sync the stack after the bottom PR merged", "merge the stack"). Use this instead of the `pr` skill whenever the work involves more than one dependent PR or any `gh stack` command; use `pr` for single, standalone pull requests.

Review Go code for adherence to Go Style Guide. Use when the user requests a code review of completed work, pull requests, or feature branches in Go projects. Focuses on critical bugs, race conditions, and important maintainability issues. Trigger phrases include "review this Go code", "check against style guide", "review my PR", or "review the work done so far".

Audit and harden Convex authorization: identity-from-arg impersonation, missing per-document ownership checks, PII-leaking public queries, and writes into containers the caller doesn't own. Deterministic scan + canonical requireIdentity/requireOwner fix + tsc verify. Use for 'secure my app' / 'audit auth' / 'who can access this data', not generic code review.

Convex code reviewer — security, auth, validators, performance, and pattern checks for code in a convex/ directory. Use to review or audit Convex functions before shipping.

Inspecting and validating RouterOS command/script syntax against a live device via /console/inspect (highlight, completion, syntax, child) and :parse IL. Use when: validating RouterOS commands before execution, explaining or linting RouterOS scripts, building syntax-aware tooling (LSP servers, validators, agent explain/check commands), interpreting highlight token streams or :parse intermediate language, discovering enum values or argument schemas, or when the user mentions console/inspect, highlight tokens, parseIL, or RouterOS script validation.

Provides code quality principles including SOLID, DRY, testing strategies, and best practices for implementation review. Use when reviewing code or applying quality standards.

Provides code quality principles including SOLID, DRY, testing strategies, and best practices for implementation review. Use when reviewing code or applying quality standards.

Reviews code implementations for correctness, security, maintainability with confidence-scored findings (converted from agent)

Provides code quality principles including SOLID, DRY, testing strategies, and best practices for implementation review. Use when reviewing code or applying quality standards.