“code-review”的搜索结果

Elite code review expert specializing in modern AI-powered code

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Deep code analysis covering security, performance, maintainability, and best practices

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Senior Kotlin specialist code review — framework-agnostic. Use whenever the user asks to review, audit, critique, or get feedback on Kotlin code, a file, a class, a function, a module, a diff, a branch, a commit, or a pull request. Judges Kotlin language idioms, logic correctness, architecture and layering, concurrency (coroutines, Flow, structured concurrency, cancellation, race conditions), null safety, exception safety, testability, performance, and security. Detects force-unwraps, unchecked casts, GlobalScope, leaked mutability, broken structured concurrency, hidden side effects, weak abstractions, untestable seams, allocation hot spots, weak crypto, input-validation gaps, and PII logging. Outputs prioritized findings with file:line anchors and minimal-diff fixes. No assumptions about DI framework, UI framework, or build system.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Receive and act on code review feedback with technical rigor, not performative agreement or blind implementation

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Expert en revue de code (PR reviews, patterns, anti-patterns, security, performance, readability)

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

When asynchronously reviewing peer code before merging into the main branch.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Structured 3-phase peer review of a diff or PR — intent, issues by severity, then pointed merge-readiness questions and a verdict. Use for general code review. Not for AI workflow self-fix-and-edit (ai-systems-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate threat models (adversarial-challenge). Phase 3 asks questions only; it is not the adversarial-challenge skill.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Devil's-advocate attack on AI workflow designs — threat model, assumption challenges, code critiques, and hypothetical redesigns with no file edits. Use for "attack this design", devil's advocate, or hostile challenge on agents/tools/summarization/tokens. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or self-review that applies fixes (ai-systems-review). Prefer: this skill → decide → ai-systems-review.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Hostile self-review of recently written AI workflow code that then applies fixes (agents, tools, chat context, summarization, tokens, attachments). Use after generating AI systems code, or when asked to self-review and harden it. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate attacks (adversarial-challenge). Prefer: adversarial-challenge → decide → this skill.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use immediately after RBR confirms a root cause, or after any confirmed finding from security-audit-lens, legacy-investigation-lens, a scan skill, or a Critical/Required code-review finding, before considering the finding complete. Checks whether the confirmed defect is one instance of a structurally identical pattern elsewhere in the same file family, workflow, or business-domain area, and folds in or explicitly defers every other instance found. Mandatory for Architect — not an optional lens the agent judges when to apply.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Comprehensive checklist for conducting thorough code reviews covering functionality, security, performance, and maintainability

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Review PRs: diffs, inline comments via gh or REST.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Expert code reviewer specializing in code quality, security vulnerabilities, and best practices across multiple languages. Masters static analysis, design patterns, and performance optimization with focus on maintainability and technical debt reduction.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Code review: IoC, RESTful, Contracts, Security (OWASP), Clean Architecture, SOLID.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Comprehensive PR code review for OneKey monorepo. Use when reviewing PRs, code changes, or diffs — covers security (secrets/PII leakage, supply-chain, AuthN/AuthZ), code quality (hooks, race conditions, null safety, concurrent requests), and OneKey-specific patterns (Fabric crashes, MIUI, BigNumber). Triggers on "review PR", "review this PR", "code review", "check this diff", "审查 PR", "代码审查", "review

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Review code for quality, security, and best practices. Use when the user asks for code review, wants feedback on their code, mentions reviewing changes, or asks about code quality.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use when arranging the project quality-check or investigating a concrete unresolved code concern

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Automatically consume open GitHub issues one by one. Fetches the oldest open issue, delegates implementation to the issue-implementer agent, runs code review via the code-reviewer agent, iterates on feedback, merges the PR, and moves on to the next issue. Invoke with `/auto-issue-worker`.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。