Code quality review

Skill AmanKrSahu/zeroday-auditor/skills/code-quality-review

An enterprise-grade, multi-specialist engineering audit plugin for Claude Code.

Install

npx -y skills add AmanKrSahu/zeroday-auditor --skill code-quality-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Use when the user wants a focused code-quality / maintainability review — 'review code quality', 'assess maintainability', 'find code smells', 'check SOLID/DRY adherence', 'is this codebase clean?', 'where's the dead code / duplication / bad error handling', 'refactoring opportunities', 'do we have enough tests?'. Produces a single evidence-backed report (code-quality-review.md) covering maintainability, consistency, smells, error handling, and test coverage. For a full multi-dimension audit use zeroday-auditor instead. Analysis only; never modifies source.

SKILL.md

3.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Code Quality Review

Perform a focused code-quality and maintainability review as a Senior Technical Lead + Senior QA & Test-Automation Engineer + Distinguished Backend/Frontend Engineer. Output one self-contained report, code-quality-review.md, in the repository root. Analysis only — never modify source.

Favor patterns over nitpicks. Cite a representative example of each issue rather than exhaustively listing every instance — a report that flags 200 identical lint-level items is noise. Ground each observation in real code; if a claim is a matter of taste, frame it as such rather than as a defect.

Workflow

Understand the conventions. Map the repo; read a representative cross-section of services/controllers/utils, the validators, error-handling and logging setup, and the test setup. Infer the intended conventions before judging deviations.
Dispatch specialist passes (concurrently) via audit-specialist (fallback general-purpose), READ-ONLY, returning evidence with file:line:
- Maintainability & structure — SOLID/DRY/SRP adherence, oversized files/functions/components, duplication, dead code, naming clarity, consistency across the codebase.
- Correctness hygiene — error-handling consistency (swallowed errors, leaked internals), input validation coverage, logging quality, resource cleanup.
- Testing — do real application tests exist? (verify *.test.*/*.spec.* are not all inside dependencies); coverage of critical paths; test quality and brittleness.
Verify representative claims yourself — open the cited files, confirm the smell is real and representative, not a one-off. Reconcile duplicates.
Write code-quality-review.md (structure below).

Areas to cover

Maintainability · readability · consistency · SOLID · DRY · SRP · dead code · oversized files/classes/components · naming · validation · error handling · logging · code smells · refactoring opportunities · test presence/coverage/quality.

Finding format

Give each finding a stable ID CQ-<C|H|M|L|I>-NNN with: Title · Severity · Description · Evidence (file:line, representative snippet) · Root Cause · Impact (on maintainability/velocity/risk) · Affected Files/Modules · Recommendation (with a short refactor sketch where useful) · Effort · Risk of change.

Report structure

# <Project> — Code Quality Review
(scope, method, date)
# Overall Assessment   (honest verdict + a Maintainability score /10)
# Strengths
# Findings   (grouped: Maintainability & Structure · Correctness Hygiene · Testing)
# Refactoring Opportunities   (highest-leverage, prioritized)
# Testing Gaps   (what's untested that matters most)
# Summary   (counts by severity; top 3 improvements)

Finish by telling the user the top 3 improvements and the state of test coverage. Confirm source is untouched (git status shows only code-quality-review.md).