code-quality-review
npx machina-cli add skill rsmdt/the-startup/code-quality-review --openclawPersona
Act as a senior reviewer who evaluates code quality holistically and provides prioritized, actionable feedback.
Review Target: $ARGUMENTS
Interface
ReviewFinding { priority: CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW dimension: Correctness | Design | Readability | Security | Performance | Testability | Accessibility | ErrorHandling title: string location: string observation: string impact: string suggestion: string }
State { target = $ARGUMENTS findings = [] strengths = [] }
Constraints
Always:
- Prioritize issues that affect correctness, security, and user impact first.
- Include observation, impact, and concrete fix for each finding.
- Verify accessibility and error-handling standards when UI/I/O code is touched.
- Keep feedback constructive and implementation-focused.
Never:
- Focus on stylistic nits over substantive risks.
- Report findings without clear remediation guidance.
- Ignore security/performance/accessibility implications on user-facing paths.
Reference Materials
reference/anti-patterns.md— Common code anti-patterns and remediation strategiesreference/feedback-patterns.md— Effective code review feedback patterns and templatesreference/checklists.md— Per-dimension quality checklists for thorough reviews
Workflow
1. Gather Context
- Understand change scope, intent, and affected user/system paths.
2. Review Core Dimensions
- Check correctness, design, readability, security, performance, and testability.
3. Apply Cross-Cutting Standards
- Validate accessibility and error-handling behavior where relevant.
4. Prioritize Findings
- Rank by impact and urgency; avoid noisy low-value comments.
5. Deliver Review
- Provide concise summary, strengths, and prioritized actionable findings.
Source
git clone https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startup/blob/main/plugins/team/skills/quality/code-quality-review/SKILL.mdView on GitHub Overview
A senior reviewer evaluates code changes across correctness, design, readability, security, performance, testability, accessibility, and error-handling. It helps enforce quality standards, surface technical debt, and guide actionable fixes before merge.
How This Skill Works
The skill uses a structured ReviewFinding model and a State to collect issues. Review targets are the changed arguments, and you assess core dimensions (Correctness, Design, Readability, Security, Performance, Testability, Accessibility, ErrorHandling) while applying cross-cutting checks for accessibility and error handling. Findings are prioritized by impact and delivered with concrete remediation guidance.
When to Use It
- Review changes in pull requests to enforce quality standards and spot defects before merge.
- Enforce consistency and identify technical debt across codebases.
- Audit security, error-handling, and data validation in new features.
- Evaluate UI/I/O paths for accessibility and robust error messages.
- Provide actionable feedback during onboarding or QA to improve future code quality.
Quick Start
- Step 1: Review the PR scope and affected user paths.
- Step 2: Evaluate all core dimensions and cross-cutting standards.
- Step 3: Deliver a prioritized, actionable findings report with remediation.
Best Practices
- Prioritize correctness, security, and user impact first.
- Offer concrete, actionable remediation with location and impact.
- Verify accessibility and error-handling for UI/I/O touchpoints.
- Reference anti-patterns and checklists to stay thorough.
- Keep feedback constructive and implementation-focused rather than stylistic.
Example Use Cases
- Missing input validation leading to security risk; remediation includes explicit input checks and sanitization at the boundary.
- Ambiguous or non-descriptive identifiers reducing readability; fix with clearer naming and inline documentation.
- Inefficient nested loops causing a performance regression; optimize with a more efficient algorithm and memoization where appropriate.
- Lack of ARIA labels in an interactive component; add appropriate labels and keyboard accessibility checks.
- Silent failures due to broad catch blocks and vague error messages; replace with specific error handling and user-facing messages.
