Results for “test-quality-review”

Universal code quality principles applicable to all languages. Covers Clean Code, SOLID, complexity metrics, and quality standards. USE WHEN: user mentions "clean code", "SOLID", "code smells", "refactoring", "complexity", asks about "cyclomatic complexity", "cognitive complexity", "code review", "maintainability" DO NOT USE FOR: language-specific linting - use ESLint/Biome skills, security - use OWASP skills, testing - use testing skills

Review this PR or diff for quality, security, and maintainability. Use when reviewing pull requests, examining a named change set, or the user asks for a code review of current work. Repo-wide anti-patterns → audit-code-quality. Bulk transform semantics → audit-codemod-safety.

Code review guidelines covering code quality, security, and best practices.

Detect and fix repo-wide anti-patterns and consistency drift (naming, organisation, repeated smells). Use when "code smell", "anti-pattern", "technical debt", or "standardize the codebase". This PR/diff review → audit-code-review.

Use to sign off a QA period for audit or governance — stating what is being attested to, on what evidence, and with which limitations. Trigger for "sign off the QA period", "attest to our quality results", "monthly QA governance pack", "certify the quality figures", or being asked to confirm quality was assured for a period.

Review whether a product, MVP, or feature is actually ready to launch. Use when the team needs a production-minded check across product quality, UX edge cases, auth and security, observability, support readiness, pricing readiness, and post-launch measurement.

Review code for quality, security, performance, and maintainability following team standards. Use when reviewing pull requests, examining code changes, or when the user asks for a code review. Triggers on diffs, PR references, or explicit review requests.

Produce a standalone test plan by analyzing code for test coverage gaps and edge cases. Use when you need to create, generate, or draft a test plan for a branch, need to analyze test coverage, or need to identify what tests to write for specific files or directories. Does not produce a plain-language plan for a person to run tests by hand — use manual-test-planning for that. Does not write test code — use tdd to implement behavior test-first. Does not refine existing plans — use iterative-plan-review. Does not review code quality, security, or style — use code-review for full code review. Does not evaluate architectural testability or structural coupling — use architectural-analysis for architectural assessment.

Guides SOC 2 Type II Privacy Trust Services Criteria preparation and audit execution. Covers AICPA TSP Section 100 Privacy criteria P1-P8 including notice, choice/consent, collection, use/retention/disposal, access, disclosure, security, and quality. Includes evidence collection, control testing, and report review. Keywords: SOC 2, privacy criteria, TSP, AICPA, Type II, trust services.

Perform a structured audit of a codebase covering security, code quality, performance, dependencies, architecture, and testing hygiene, then produce a prioritized findings report. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a code review, code audit, security review, codebase assessment, "look over this repo", "what's wrong with this codebase", legacy-code triage, pre-acquisition technical due diligence, or any request to systematically evaluate the health of a project. Trigger even when the user is casual ("can you eyeball my repo?") — this skill imposes the structure that ad-hoc review misses. This skill audits a whole repository at a point in time — for reviewing a diff or PR use the built-in code-review skill; for security checks on pending changes use security-review.

Perform a static audit of an AL workspace for Business Central against the project's copilot-instructions.md contract. Reports findings by class (Compliance, Code quality, Test coverage, Permissions) and severity (Blocker, Major, Minor, Nit) with file:line citations. Never modifies code. Never invents rules. Use when asked to audit a workspace, run a compliance check, review before PR, or diagnose contract drift.