「code quality」の検索結果

Analyze escaped defects and test suite health through blameless postmortems. Covers bug pattern analysis, test suite health reviews, 5 Whys root cause analysis, process improvement cycles, and postmortem/retro meeting templates with action item tracking. Use when: "QA retro," "escaped bugs," "postmortem," "quality incident," "defect analysis," "improvement cycle." Not for: live release go/no-go decisions — use release-readiness. Not for ongoing metric dashboards — use qa-metrics. Not for reviewing existing test code quality — use ai-qa-review. Related: qa-metrics, test-reliability, test-strategy.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review EXISTING test code for quality, smells, and testability issues. Detects test smells across six dimensions — readability, reliability, diagnostic value, design, AI-generated, and coverage — analyzes testability of application code, and backs the qualitative smells with mutation testing. Use when: "review my tests," "test quality audit," "test smells," "testability analysis," "are these tests any good." Not for: generating new tests — use `ai-test-generation`. Not for: testing AI features in your product — use `ai-system-testing`. Related: unit-testing, shift-left-testing, coverage-analysis, ai-test-generation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Makes working code easier to read and change without altering what it does, and proves the behaviour stayed the same. Use when someone says "simplify this", "clean up this function", "this file is a mess", "reduce the complexity", "refactor for readability", "tidy my diff before the PR", or when a linter reports high cyclomatic complexity or deep nesting. Covers pinning current behaviour with characterization tests, measuring complexity, choosing a named refactoring, applying it in small verified steps, and reporting suspected bugs found on the way instead of fixing them silently.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Covers design thinking, typography pairing, color theory, motion design, spatial composition, and code quality. Generates real working code — HTML/CSS/JS or React — with intentional aesthetic direction, not generic AI output.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audits any API documentation site by crawling every endpoint page and scoring each one across 5 checks: description quality, OpenAPI spec presence, body param descriptions, response codes, and response schema completeness. Produces a polished interactive HTML report with a summary scorecard, site-wide pattern analysis, ranked top issues, and per-endpoint findings with specific fix guidance. Trigger this skill whenever a user provides a documentation URL and asks to audit, review, analyse, or check their API docs. Also trigger for: "do the same audit for X", "audit docs.company.com", "check the API docs at X", "run the API docs audit on X", "review the docs for Y API", or pastes a URL alongside words like audit, review, crawl, check, analyse, quality, completeness, or gaps. Always use this skill — do not attempt the audit without following this structured crawl-score-report workflow.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the user wants to know if something works — the answer requires running code, not analyzing it. Output is a verdict backed by evidence: passed, failed, or broken. Primary triggers: 'run the tests', 'does X still work after my change?', 'did the merge break anything?', 'verify the fix worked', 'check if the endpoint returns X', 'confirm nothing regressed', 'run tests/unit/test_foo.py', 'let me know the results', 'make sure my changes didn't break anything'. Hard stops — do NOT use for: reviewing test code for quality/coverage gaps, debugging why test infrastructure/databases/seed scripts are misbehaving, writing or fixing tests, diagnosing root causes of unexpected behavior. The deciding question: is the user asking for the result of executing something, or asking for help understanding/analyzing/improving something? If it's the latter, use diagnose or review-code instead.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

The single config quality skill. Two modes: (1) Default — review/wire pending self-improvement proposals. (2) Audit — analyzes skills, rules, CLAUDE.md, project refs, hooks, and agents against the actual codebase to find inaccuracies, trigger overlaps, stale references, and weak rules, then fixes them. Trigger on 'self-evolve', 'evolve', 'config health check', 'audit config', 'check claude setup', 'apply this rule', 'reorganize rules', 'ok' (when proposals are pending). NOT for improving individual skills (use skill-creator), diagnosing code bugs (use diagnose), or fixing broken code (use fix).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Apply senior software engineering standards when writing, editing, or refactoring any code. Use this skill whenever the user asks to write a function, build a feature, fix a bug, design a module, or improve existing code — even if they don't mention quality explicitly. The goal is production-grade code: readable, correct, maintainable, secure, and failure-aware. Always active for any coding task, at any scale.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review common AI slops of defensive programming patterns, avoid silent errors. TRIGGER when reviewing code for defensive anti-patterns, writing fail-fast code, or auditing error handling quality.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Performs an architectural and quality code review on a specified file or set of files. Checks for coding standard compliance, architectural pattern adherence, SOLID principles, testability, and performance concerns.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Auditing AI CLI configs and designing, configuring, or debugging Claude Code hooks. Use for Codex/agy/Claude Code config reviews, hook lifecycle automation, quality gates, or MCP governance.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

You launched an ambassador program. 3 applications. One ghosted after week 2. Should you lower the bar? Offer more perks? Spam influencers? This gives you the complete community & ambassador operations SOP — from pre-launch checklist to recruitment to tiered management to retention to governance. Built from Notion (20M users, real ambassador interviews), AFFiNE (60K stars), Asana, and ClickUp programs. By @WeiYipei. What's inside: • Pre-launch readiness checklist (6 conditions that must be true before starting) • 6-step community setup SOP (platform selection → rules → admin standards → monitoring → wiki → metrics) • Ambassador recruitment system (A+B qualification, application form design, scoring rubric) • 4-tier progression system (Bronze → Silver → Gold → Platinum with point thresholds) • 5-pillar incentive framework (Product quality → Beta access → Founder access → KOL path → Full engagement) • Churn early-warning system + retention playbook • Event operations SOP (6 event types × full lifecycle) • Health metrics dashboard (6 core KPIs + 5 ambassador-specific indicators) • Governance & risk control (behavior code, escalation matrix) • Real templates: recruitment post, welcome email, annual calendar 🇨🇳 你搞了个大使计划。来了3个申请。一个第二周就消失了。该降门槛？加福利？群发KOL？这份SOP给你从启动前置条件到招募到留存到治理的完整社区/大使运营方法论。基于 Notion（2000万用户，大使真实访谈）、AFFiNE（60K stars）、Asana、ClickUp 实战案例。 🇯🇵 アンバサダープログラムを立ち上げた。応募3件。1人は2週間で消えた。基準を下げる？特典を増やす？このSOPは、事前チェックリストから採用、段階管理、リテンション、ガバナンスまでの完全なコミュニティ＆アンバサダー運営フレームワークを提供します。Notion（2000万ユーザー）、AFFiNE（60K stars）の実例から構築。 🇰🇷 앰배서더 프로그램을 시작했습니다. 지원 3건. 하나는 2주 만에 사라졌습니다. 기준을 낮출까요? 이 SOP는 사전 체크리스트부터 모집, 단계별 관리, 리텐션, 거버넌스까지 완전한 커뮤니티 & 앰배서더 운영 프레임워크를 제공합니다. Notion(2000만 사용자), AFFiNE(60K stars) 실전 사례에서 구축. Triggers: "ambassador program" | "community building" | "community management" | "DevRel" | "developer relations" | "community growth" | "大使计划" | "社区运营" | "社区搭建" | "コミュニティ運営" | "アンバサダー" | "커뮤니티 운영" | "앰배서더" | "open source community" | "user retention"

Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts across four categories (tests, dead code, abstraction, style) over the project or changed files — using parallel subagents when the agent supports them, otherwise four sequential passes. Scans files changed since main by default; use --all for full-project scan. Triggers on LLM cruft cleanup, agent-generated code review, dead code sweeps, test-quality passes, or when the user asks to scan the whole repo.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Detects common LLM coding agent artifacts in codebases. Identifies test quality issues, dead code, over-abstraction, and verbose LLM style patterns. Use when cleaning up AI-generated code or reviewing for agent-introduced cruft.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audit existing data cleaning code — find missing validation, silent data loss, and quality gaps. Use when asked to "audit our data cleaning", "are we losing data silently", or "find data quality gaps".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run Ultimate Bug Scanner (UBS) for code review. Use when reviewing code, checking for bugs, scanning for security issues, validating AI-generated code, or pre-commit quality checks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews code for bugs, style, and best practices. Use when reviewing PRs or checking code quality.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews Python code across type safety, error handling, security, performance, modern patterns, design clarity, typed-boundary compliance, test quality, and documentation. Use when performing code review, PR review, pre-merge quality checks, or assessing Python for security vulnerabilities, bare except clauses, Any usage outside boundaries, or missing input validation at system boundaries.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reviews CLI application code for correctness and quality. Use when reviewing tools that use argparse, click, typer, commander.js, or similar argument parsers — covers exit codes, help flags, stdin/stdout/stderr separation, non-interactive operation, signal handling, argument validation, ANSI color safety, and dry-run support for destructive operations.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Write-time code quality enforcement using Plankton — auto-formatting, linting, and Claude-powered fixes on every file edit via hooks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review changed Anabasis v2 code for reuse, simplification, efficiency and altitude, then apply the fixes. Quality only: it hunts no bugs, which /code-review does. Starts from what the repository already finds (the lint plugins, the whole-tree census, the not-slop ledger), measures before and after with reduce-complexity's scripts, and holds a pass to its budgets and to the rules no pass trades. Use as /simplify on your own diff before a commit, or when the operator asks whether code is simple enough, why something exists, to go one layer higher, or to remove something and find another way.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review PyTorch pull requests for code quality, test coverage, security, and backward compatibility. Use when reviewing PRs, when asked to review code changes, or when the user mentions "review PR", "code review", or "check this PR".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Convert deep research output (Claude Research, ChatGPT Deep Research, Gemini, Codex — any long-form MD/Word/text) into a consulting-quality HTML report: pyramid structure, numbers promoted to KPIs/charts, comparisons turned into framework tables, citations preserved. Use when the user provides research/investigation results and says レポートにして/HTMLにまとめて/資料にして/きれいにして, mentions ディープリサーチの結果/調査結果/リサーチ結果, or asks to research a topic AND deliver a report. NEVER invents numbers or facts not present in the source (盛らない原則).

Structured review process for Remotion video implementations. Analyzes spec compliance, detects common timing/easing issues, validates asset quality, and provides prioritized revision lists. Use when reviewing Remotion code against design specs or performing quality assurance on video compositions. Trigger phrases "review video code", "check spec compliance", "audit Remotion implementation".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。