Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

code-quality-review(代码质量审查)

code-quality-review 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

code-quality-review 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 68,015。

总安装 238周安装 10GitHub Stars 265下载 83核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:code-quality-review(代码质量审查)
来源仓库:https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startup
仓库路径:skills/code-quality-review
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startup --skill code-quality-review
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startup --skill code-quality-review

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

code-quality-review 建立六维审查模型:正确性、性能、可读性等,提供建设性反馈框架。适用于 Pull Request 评审、技术债务优先级排序与开发者能力培养。每项评价均附带具体问题与改进建议,避免模糊指责与主观判断。支持建立团队评审标准与自动化规则,提升审查效率与一致性。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/code-quality-review

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startup --skill code-quality-review;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

code-quality-review 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/rsmdt/the-startup --skill code-quality-review。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

code-quality-review 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

code-quality-review 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

code-quality-review 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

code-quality-review 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 238 次,近一周安装 10 次,下载 83 次,GitHub 265 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

code-quality-review 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
code-quality-review

代码质量审查 · 本页

238265需要联网MIT未收录

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Code Quality Review Methodology

Systematic patterns for reviewing code and providing constructive, actionable feedback that improves both code quality and developer skills.

When to Activate

  • Reviewing pull requests or merge requests
  • Assessing overall codebase quality
  • Identifying and prioritizing technical debt
  • Mentoring developers through code review
  • Establishing code review standards for teams
  • Auditing code for security or compliance

Review Dimensions

Every code review should evaluate these six dimensions:

1. Correctness

Does the code work as intended?

CheckQuestions
FunctionalityDoes it solve the stated problem?
Edge CasesAre boundary conditions handled?
Error HandlingAre failures gracefully managed?
Data ValidationAre inputs validated at boundaries?
Null SafetyAre null/undefined cases covered?

2. Design

Is the code well-structured?

CheckQuestions
Single ResponsibilityDoes each function/class do one thing?
Abstraction LevelIs complexity hidden appropriately?
CouplingAre dependencies minimized?
CohesionDo related things stay together?
ExtensibilityCan it be modified without major changes?

3. Readability

Can others understand this code?

CheckQuestions
NamingDo names reveal intent?
CommentsIs the "why" explained, not the "what"?
FormattingIs style consistent?
ComplexityIs cyclomatic complexity reasonable (<10)?
FlowIs control flow straightforward?

4. Security

Is the code secure?

CheckQuestions
Input ValidationAre all inputs sanitized?
AuthenticationAre auth checks present where needed?
AuthorizationAre permissions verified?
Data ExposureIs sensitive data protected?
DependenciesAre there known vulnerabilities?

5. Performance

Is the code efficient?

CheckQuestions
AlgorithmicIs time complexity appropriate?
MemoryAre allocations reasonable?
I/OAre database/network calls optimized?
CachingIs caching used where beneficial?
ConcurrencyAre race conditions avoided?

6. Testability

Can this code be tested?

CheckQuestions
Test CoverageAre critical paths tested?
Test QualityDo tests verify behavior, not implementation?
MockingAre external dependencies mockable?
DeterminismAre tests reliable and repeatable?
Edge CasesAre boundary conditions tested?

Anti-Pattern Catalog

Common code smells and their remediation:

Method-Level Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternDetection SignsRemediation
Long Method>20 lines, multiple responsibilitiesExtract Method
Long Parameter List>3-4 parametersIntroduce Parameter Object
Duplicate CodeCopy-paste patternsExtract Method, Template Method
Complex ConditionalsNested if/else, switch statementsDecompose Conditional, Strategy Pattern
Magic NumbersHardcoded values without contextExtract Constant
Dead CodeUnreachable or unused codeDelete it

Class-Level Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternDetection SignsRemediation
God Object>500 lines, many responsibilitiesExtract Class
Data ClassOnly getters/setters, no behaviorMove behavior to class
Feature EnvyMethod uses another class's data extensivelyMove Method
Inappropriate IntimacyClasses know too much about each otherMove Method, Extract Class
Refused BequestSubclass doesn't use inherited behaviorReplace Inheritance with Delegation
Lazy ClassDoes too little to justify existenceInline Class

Architecture-Level Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternDetection SignsRemediation
Circular DependenciesA depends on B depends on ADependency Inversion
Shotgun SurgeryOne change requires many file editsMove Method, Extract Class
Leaky AbstractionImplementation details exposedEncapsulate
Premature OptimizationComplex code for unproven performanceSimplify, measure first
Over-EngineeringAbstractions for hypothetical requirementsYAGNI - simplify

Review Prioritization

Focus review effort where it matters most:

Priority 1: Critical (Must Fix)

  • Security vulnerabilities (injection, auth bypass)
  • Data loss or corruption risks
  • Breaking changes to public APIs
  • Production stability risks

Priority 2: High (Should Fix)

  • Logic errors affecting functionality
  • Performance issues in hot paths
  • Missing error handling for likely failures
  • Violation of architectural principles

Priority 3: Medium (Consider Fixing)

  • Code duplication
  • Missing tests for new code
  • Naming that reduces clarity
  • Overly complex conditionals

Priority 4: Low (Nice to Have)

  • Style inconsistencies
  • Minor optimization opportunities
  • Documentation improvements
  • Refactoring suggestions

Constructive Feedback Patterns

The Feedback Formula

[Observation] + [Why it matters] + [Suggestion] + [Example if helpful]

Good Feedback Examples

# Instead of:
"This is wrong"

# Say:
"This query runs inside a loop (line 45), which could cause N+1
performance issues as the dataset grows. Consider using a batch
query before the loop:

users = User.query.filter(User.id.in_(user_ids)).all() user_map = {u.id: u for u in users}


"
# Instead of:
"Use better names"

# Say:
"The variable `d` on line 23 would be clearer as `daysSinceLastLogin` -
it helps readers understand the business logic without tracing back
to the assignment."

Feedback Tone Guide

AvoidPrefer
"You should...""Consider..." or "What about..."
"This is wrong""This might cause issues because..."
"Why didn't you...""Have you considered..."
"Obviously...""One approach is..."
"Always/Never do X""In this context, X would help because..."

Positive Observations

Include what's done well:

"Nice use of the Strategy pattern here - it makes adding new
payment methods straightforward."

"Good error handling - the retry logic with exponential backoff
is exactly what we need for this flaky API."

"Clean separation of concerns between the validation and persistence logic."

Review Checklists

Quick Review Checklist (< 100 lines)

  • Code compiles and tests pass
  • Logic appears correct for stated purpose
  • No obvious security issues
  • Naming is clear
  • No magic numbers or strings

Standard Review Checklist (100-500 lines)

All of the above, plus:

  • Design follows project patterns
  • Error handling is appropriate
  • Tests cover new functionality
  • No significant duplication
  • Performance is reasonable

Deep Review Checklist (> 500 lines or critical)

All of the above, plus:

  • Architecture aligns with system design
  • Security implications considered
  • Backward compatibility maintained
  • Documentation updated
  • Migration/rollback plan if needed

Review Workflow

Before Reviewing

  1. Understand the context (ticket, discussion, requirements)
  2. Check if CI passes (don't review failing code)
  3. Estimate review complexity and allocate time

During Review

  1. First pass: Understand the overall change
  2. Second pass: Check correctness and design
  3. Third pass: Look for edge cases and security
  4. Document findings as you go

After Review

  1. Summarize overall impression
  2. Clearly indicate approval status
  3. Distinguish blocking vs non-blocking feedback
  4. Offer to discuss complex suggestions

Review Metrics

Track review effectiveness:

MetricTargetWhat It Indicates
Review Turnaround< 24 hoursTeam velocity
Comments per Review3-10Engagement level
Defects FoundDecreasing trendQuality improvement
Review Time< 60 min for typical PRRight-sized changes
Approval Rate70-90% first submissionClear standards

Anti-Patterns in Reviewing

Avoid these review behaviors:

Anti-PatternDescriptionBetter Approach
NitpickingFocusing on style over substanceUse linters for style
Drive-by ReviewQuick approval without depthAllocate proper time
GatekeepingBlocking for personal preferencesFocus on objective criteria
Ghost ReviewApproval without commentsAdd at least one observation
Review BombingOverwhelming with commentsPrioritize and limit to top issues
Delayed ReviewLetting PRs sit for daysCommit to turnaround time

References

平台分布

Claude Code

31.78%
按下载量换算26

windsurf

20.67%
按下载量换算17

OpenCode

19.56%
按下载量换算16

Codex

13.48%
按下载量换算11

Gemini CLI

8.29%
按下载量换算7

trae

3.45%
按下载量换算3

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

继续浏览同类 Skills