「code quality」の検索結果

Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.

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。

Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.

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 modern web development best practices for security, compatibility, and code quality. Use when asked to "apply best practices", "security audit", "modernize code", "code quality review", or "check for vulnerabilities".

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。

Guided journey from a working codebase grown slow and tangled to one measurably fast, cleanly bounded, and readable. Orchestrates eight skills phase by phase - working-with-legacy-code, clean-architecture, software-design-philosophy, refactoring-patterns, system-design, ddia-systems, release-it, pragmatic-programmer - every phase carries its method inline so it runs standalone, asking the user questions at every decision point and recording results in the project docs/ folder (PERFORMANCE.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, ARCHITECTURE-OPTIMIZATION-PLAN.md) so the journey resumes across sessions. Use when the user wants to make an app faster, untangle drifted boundaries, fix slow endpoints and queries, or says 'it works but it is slow and getting worse'. For an untested prototype, improve-code-quality; for an aged codebase you fear to touch, remove-technical-debt; for greenfield structure, design-code-architecture; for marketing-site page speed, improve-website. For one framework in isolation, invoke that skill directly.

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。

Structure software around the Dependency Rule: source code dependencies point inward from frameworks to use cases to entities. Use when the user mentions "architecture layers", "dependency rule", "ports and adapters (hexagonal)", "onion architecture", "screaming architecture", "where should business logic go", "decouple from the database", "swap the framework without a rewrite", or "keep business rules independent". Also trigger when deciding which layer code belongs in, isolating core logic from infrastructure, defining module boundaries, or debating whether the framework should call your code or the reverse. Covers component principles, boundaries, and SOLID. For code-level quality, see clean-code. For domain modeling, see domain-driven-design.

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。

AI code quality checks. The Big 5: input validation, edge cases, error handling, duplication, complexity. Triggers: quality, big 5, ai code, review, validate.

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。

Guidelines for introducing and using nullable reference types (NRT) and System.Diagnostics.CodeAnalysis nullable attributes in C# / .NET codebases. Covers the nullability model, flow analysis, the null-forgiving operator, API design rules, the full attribute catalog (AllowNull, DisallowNull, MaybeNull, NotNull, NotNullWhen, MaybeNullWhen, NotNullIfNotNull, MemberNotNull, MemberNotNullWhen, DoesNotReturn, DoesNotReturnIf), the C# 14 field keyword, incremental migration of legacy codebases, and a code-generation checklist.

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。

Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.

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 code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues that truly matter. Use this skill when reviewing a small set of changes locally (such as unstaged diff), when dispatched as a sub-task during feature-dev quality review, or when the user wants a critique of a specific file or function.

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。

Set up or refine open-source .NET code-quality gates for CI: formatting, `.editorconfig`, SDK analyzers, third-party analyzers, coverage, mutation testing, architecture tests, and security scanning. USE FOR: .NET quality gates in CI; analyzer, coverage, mutation, and architecture-test choices; standardizing `.editorconfig`, `dotnet format`, and warning policy. DO NOT USE FOR: non-.NET repositories; generic CI/CD guidance with no .NET quality stack decisions. INVOKES: inspect the repository context, edit targeted files, and run relevant build, test, lint, or validation commands when changes are made.

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 you need to review, improve, or refactor Java code for type design quality — including establishing clear type hierarchies, applying consistent naming conventions, eliminating primitive obsession with domain-specific value objects, leveraging generic type parameters, creating type-safe wrappers, designing fluent interfaces, ensuring precision-appropriate numeric types (BigDecimal for financial calculations), and improving type contrast through interfaces and method signature alignment. This should trigger for requests such as Review Java code for type design; Improve type design in Java code; Fix primitive obsession in Java code; Create value objects in Java code. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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 you need to apply testing strategies for Java code — RIGHT-BICEP to guide test creation, A-TRIP for test quality characteristics, or CORRECT for verifying boundary conditions. This should trigger for requests such as Review Java code for testing strategies; Apply RIGHT-BICEP testing strategies in Java code; Apply A-TRIP testing strategies in Java code; Apply CORRECT boundary condition verification in Java code. Part of Plinth Toolkit

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。

Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.

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。

Improves code quality across duplication, efficiency, and architectural fit. Use when code passes tests but quality is poor or before a major release.

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。

Analyzes an existing codebase using strategic Domain-Driven Design to discover bounded contexts, surface ubiquitous language and semantic collisions, find places where code boundaries diverge from domain boundaries, and produce an evidence-backed domain and context map. Use when the goal is DDD-specific: bounded context discovery, ubiquitous language analysis, domain model discovery, or mapping contested ownership and responsibility. The entire repository is a valid scope; no module or directory must be named first. Does not assess architectural coupling, cohesion, or technical debt — use architectural-analysis. Does not design service communication, integration patterns, or deployment topology — use architectural-analysis or plan-a-feature. Does not refactor code, diagnose bugs, or review code quality — use refactor, investigate, or code-review.

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。

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.

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。

Identify design quality issues in code including high coupling, low cohesion, God classes, long methods, and other code smells. Use when: (1) Reviewing code architecture and design quality, (2) Identifying refactoring opportunities, (3) Detecting God classes or classes with too many responsibilities, (4) Finding high coupling or low cohesion issues, (5) Analyzing code maintainability and technical debt. Detects coupling smells, cohesion problems, complexity issues, size violations, and encapsulation problems with actionable refactoring suggestions.

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 requirement quality principles when generating or validating feature specifications. Enforces feature completeness, scenario structure, AC verifiability, feature independence, and implementation slice quality. Use when writing feature specs, validating existing requirements, or when the user mentions 'validate this spec', 'check this feature', 'requirement quality', 'is this spec complete', or 'requirement-quality'. This skill governs the craft of writing individual feature specifications — not technical design (see design-blueprint), not implementation (see code-forge).

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 and reorganises what an AI coding agent carries in its context window: instruction files, path-scoped rules, skills, subagents, hooks and the running conversation. Use when someone says "the agent ignores our CLAUDE.md", "set this repo up for Claude Code / Codex / Cursor", "my AGENTS.md is too long", "quality drops in long sessions", "it keeps inventing APIs", "what should go in a skill versus the rules file", or asks how to hand work to a subagent. Grounded in the documented loading behaviour of Claude Code, with the equivalents for Codex, Gemini CLI and Cursor.

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。

Expert in the human side of code review. Covers giving feedback that lands, receiving criticism gracefully, navigating disagreements, and building a healthy review culture. Understands that code review is as much about relationships as it is about code quality. Use when "code review, PR feedback, review comments, how to give feedback, harsh review, review culture, constructive criticism, " mentioned.

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。

Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.

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。

Comprehensive truth scoring, code quality verification, and automatic rollback system with 0.95 accuracy threshold for ensuring high-quality agent outputs and codebase reliability.

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 code changes for correctness, security, performance, and code quality. Use when the user asks to review a diff, review code changes, review commits, or perform a code review. Input can be: (1) a text diff pasted directly, (2) one or more git commit hashes to extract the diff from, or (3) a git range like abc123..def456. The user may also provide task description or requirements that motivated the change.

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。

Systematic code review skill covering both requesting a review (pre-commit checklist) and receiving and responding to review feedback. Checks code quality, security, test coverage, architectural alignment, and documentation before any code is committed.

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。