Results for “code-review”

Write readable, maintainable code through disciplined naming, small functions, and clean error handling. Use when the user mentions "code review", "naming conventions", "function too long", "code smells", "readable code", "boy scout rule", "single responsibility", or "unit test quality". Also trigger when reviewing pull requests for readability, refactoring messy functions, debating comment styles, or improving error handling patterns. Covers SRP, comment discipline, formatting, and unit testing. For refactoring techniques, see refactoring-patterns. For architecture, see clean-architecture.

Analyzes code to separate essential complexity from incidental noise, then produces a ranked refactoring plan with a structural sketch and TRACE assessment, without making edits.

Structures a bounded spec-build-review development loop with explicit scope, stop conditions, and human approval gates for risky or ambiguous work.

Guides creating small, issue-linked pull requests with conventional branch naming, commit messages, and structured descriptions, plus a review cycle.

Generates unit tests for code changed in the current branch by comparing against origin/main and following existing test conventions.

Get a second opinion from Claude Code. Use from Codex when you want to cross-check your reasoning, validate a plan, or get an independent review from Claude.

Use this when reviewing how a codebase organizes configuration files, env vars, runtime options, feature flags, and per-environment settings. Trigger on requests to clean up or validate config structure.

Manages persistent coding sessions across multiple AI coding engines including Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity, Cursor, and OpenCode, with support for multi-agent councils, cross-session messaging, deep planning, parallel code review, and autonomous workspace iteration.

Grounds every implementation decision in official documentation, ensuring authoritative, source-cited code free from outdated patterns.

Split a large pull request into multiple smaller PRs to reduce the number of required CODEOWNERS reviewer groups.

Compares two code versions for semantic equivalence by tracing both side-by-side, identifying divergences, and producing a structured verdict.

Analyzes a completed phase diff for high-confidence behavior-preserving simplifications and applies only explicitly approved proposals, reducing duplication, dead code, needless complexity, or avoidable inefficiency.

Audits Rust codebases for safe/unsafe boundary issues, memory safety in unsafe blocks, concurrency hazards, panic-induced DoS, FFI safety, and async runtime mistakes.

AI code reviewer grounded in classic software engineering books for catching design smells, coupling issues, and architectural risks.

Guides minimal-diff code changes by defining contracts and invariants, choosing a stable seam, and proving the result with an executed check.

Iterate on a pull request until actionable CI checks pass and high/medium review feedback is addressed, stopping at human approval, draft, or merge gates.

Audits iOS app source code and metadata to identify App Store rejection risks and optimization opportunities, producing a structured compliance report.

Write, review, or improve SwiftUI code following best practices for state management, view composition, performance, macOS-specific APIs, and iOS 26+ Liquid Glass adoption. Use when building new SwiftUI features, refactoring existing views, reviewing code quality, or adopting modern SwiftUI patterns.

Defines a gated Research-Plan-TDD-Review-Commit pipeline for orchestrating feature development, defect fixes, and refactoring tasks through composable phases and human approval gates.

Orchestrate altering an existing, working feature to new desired behavior by updating tests first, then changing implementation, reviewing, and committing with gated approval.

Use when main results pass result-to-claim (claim_supported=yes or partial) and ablation studies are needed for paper submission. Codex designs ablations from a reviewer's perspective, CC reviews feasibility and implements.

Optimizes React and Next.js performance with 70+ rules across 8 priority categories, covering waterfalls, bundle size, server-side, client fetching, re-renders, rendering, JS micro-perf, and advanced patterns. Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring React/Next.js code.

Analyzes code for logical errors, race conditions, security vulnerabilities, and algorithmic flaws using structured reasoning across 9 risk categories.

Review technical and strategy documents for codebase drift, strategic alignment, cross-document conflicts, simplification opportunities, engineering quality, and document organization. Use when auditing whether docs should be kept, updated, merged, split, moved, archived, or deleted.

Runs a multi-phase verification pipeline including build, type-check, lint, tests, security scan, and diff review to ensure code quality before creating a PR.

Produces a maintainer-grade review of a pull request or large contribution, explaining the change tutorial-style and delivering a polished HTML or Markdown report with a concrete merge recommendation.

Establishes baseline cross-project coding conventions for naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review, with pointers to framework-specific skills.

Walks a person through code changes one step at a time in conversation, starting at the entry point and following the flow that changes, showing a small chunk per step and explaining it in plain language. Defaults to the current branch's changes, and walks the code from the perspective of any context provided instead — a file, directory, symbol, pull request, plan, or ticket. Use when someone wants to be walked through, taught, paced through, or shown around code or a branch step by step, or to learn how a change works before reviewing or extending it. Stops after every step and waits, so the learner sets the pace. Paces through code that already exists and builds nothing — to build new work while being paced through it, use pairing. Does not produce a written overview to read alone — use code-overview. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not diagnose bugs — use investigate.

Use when implementing or reviewing substantial TypeScript, designing public APIs, modeling domain state, validating runtime data, or refactoring project-scale TypeScript code.

Use when the user asks to run Gemini CLI for code review, plan review, or big context (>200k) processing. Ideal for comprehensive analysis requiring large context windows. Uses Gemini 3 Pro by default for state-of-the-art reasoning and coding.

Use when the user asks to run Gemini CLI for code review, plan review, or big context (>200k) processing. Ideal for comprehensive analysis requiring large context windows. Uses Gemini 3 Pro by default for state-of-the-art reasoning and coding.

Sharpens and stress-tests an existing plan file through multiple codebase-grounded review passes, editing it in place and recording every finding and iteration in cross-referenced companion files. Use this skill whenever the user wants to iterate on, refine, tighten, or improve a plan. Also use it when the user asks to verify, validate, or confirm feasibility of an approach. Does not implement plan steps, write test plans, review code, or investigate bugs, and does not generate new plans from scratch — use plan-a-feature for a new plan. Runs its review rounds to completion without pausing between them; to review each round as it lands, use pairing.

Turns a GitHub pull request into a code-change explainer video with changelog, feature reveal, or refactoring walkthrough built from the diff, commits, and files.

Adversarially verify an implementation against its objective, acceptance criteria, definition of done, and prohibitions using fresh evidence. Use for completion gates, release readiness, or independent verification after implementation and review.

Iteratively improves a PR (GitHub), MR (GitLab), or shelved changelist (Perforce) until Greptile gives it a 5/5 confidence score with zero unresolved comments. Triggers Greptile review, fixes all actionable comments, pushes/re-shelves, re-triggers review, and repeats. Use when the user wants to fully optimize a PR/MR/CL against Greptile's code review standards.

Enforce code quality with Ruff in a controlled, iterative workflow: run checks with optional scope and rule overrides, apply safe and unsafe autofixes, review diffs, and resolve remaining findings.