agentsclimarketplace

Code quality check

Skill vishnujchandran/.agents/skills/code-quality-check

A curated collection of reusable AI agent skills, playbooks, and prompts for security audits, engineering workflows, and automation.

Install
npx -y skills add vishnujchandran/.agents --skill code-quality-check

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

2 things to look at

  • no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
  • 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

Top-tier code quality audit skill for correctness, maintainability, readability, and testability with prioritized, minimal-diff fixes.

SKILL.md

2.2 KB, 460 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

code-quality-check (v2.0)

Single general skill for code quality checks across repositories.

Trigger Signals

Use when user asks to:

  • check code quality
  • review messy or legacy code
  • improve maintainability/readability
  • reduce bug risk without major rewrites

Modes

  • analyze-only (default): findings + fix plan, no code edits
  • patch-safe: apply minimal, low-risk fixes after user confirmation

Inputs

  • target scope: changed files, module, or whole repo
  • language/framework: auto-detect from project files
  • optional focus: correctness, maintainability, testability, perf-smells

Quality Dimensions

  1. Correctness risk (null/edge cases, unsafe assumptions)
  2. Maintainability (complexity, duplication, dead code)
  3. Readability (naming, cohesion, module boundaries)
  4. Testability (missing tests around critical logic)
  5. Performance smells (hot loops, obvious anti-patterns)

Workflow

  1. Detect stack and project conventions (lint/format/tests).
  2. Prioritize changed and high-risk files first.
  3. Score findings using risk formula.
  4. Propose minimal, safe remediations.
  5. Add test recommendations for P0/P1 findings.

Risk Scoring

risk = impact × likelihood × change_surface

  • P0: likely bugs/correctness failures
  • P1: high complexity/fragility on important paths
  • P2: readability/style improvements

Output Contract

Return exactly:

  1. Quality summary (High/Medium/Low) + top risks
  2. Findings table: priority | confidence | file | issue | impact | fix
  3. Top 5 fixes first
  4. Test plan for P0/P1 findings
  5. Optional minimal-diff patch plan

Fail Conditions

Mark result as needs-work if:

  • any unresolved P0 exists
  • critical path has no test recommendation
  • proposed fix requires large rewrite outside requested scope

Constraints

  • Prefer minimal diffs over rewrites
  • Do not invent project rules; follow existing conventions
  • Distinguish correctness issues from style preferences
  • Keep feedback specific, actionable, and evidence-based

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.