Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

code-quality代码质量

Agent Skill

code-quality 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。

总安装

4,704

周安装

198

GitHub Stars

12

下载量

1,647
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

3

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

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(代码质量)
来源仓库:https://github.com/samhvw8/dotfiles
仓库路径:skills/code-quality
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/samhvw8/dotfiles --skill code-quality
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/samhvw8/dotfiles --skill code-quality

简介

code-quality 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。

  • 适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中根据关键词、任务场景快速定位候选结果。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从指定仓库安装,需结合原始 README 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。
  • 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。

SKILL.md

Code Quality

Systematic code improvement through review, refactoring, and debugging with verification gates.

Module Selection

NeedModuleReference
Receive FeedbackReviewreferences/code-review-reception.md
Request ReviewReviewreferences/requesting-code-review.md
Verify Before ClaimReviewreferences/verification-before-completion.md
Reduce ComplexityRefactoringreferences/oop-refactoring-catalog.md
Functional PatternsRefactoringreferences/functional-refactoring-patterns.md
Find Code SmellsRefactoringreferences/code-smells-reference.md
Test StrategiesRefactoringreferences/testing-strategies.md
Investigate BugsDebuggingreferences/systematic-debugging.md
Trace Root CauseDebuggingreferences/root-cause-tracing.md
Add ValidationDebuggingreferences/defense-in-depth.md
Verify FixDebuggingreferences/verification.md

Core Principles

YAGNI, KISS, DRY - Always honor these.

Be honest, be brutal, straight to the point, and be concise.

Technical correctness over social comfort. Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Evidence before claims.


Code Review

Receiving Feedback

Pattern: READ → UNDERSTAND → VERIFY → EVALUATE → RESPOND → IMPLEMENT

Rules:

  • ❌ No performative agreement ("You're right!", "Great point!")
  • ❌ No implementation before verification
  • ✅ Restate requirement, ask questions, push back with reasoning
  • ✅ YAGNI check: grep for usage before implementing suggestions

Sources:

  • Human partner → Implement after understanding
  • External reviewer → Verify technically before implementing

Requesting Review

When: After major features, before merge, after complex fixes

Process:

  1. Get SHAs: BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1), HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
  2. Dispatch code-reviewer subagent with: WHAT, PLAN, SHAs, DESCRIPTION
  3. Fix Critical immediately, Important before proceeding, note Minor

Verification Gates

Iron Law: NO COMPLETION CLAIMS WITHOUT FRESH VERIFICATION EVIDENCE

Gate: IDENTIFY → RUN → READ → VERIFY → THEN claim

Skip any step = lying, not verifying.


Refactoring

Mindset

Simplify relentlessly. Preserve behavior religiously. Measure everything.

Every refactoring: small and safe, tested immediately, measurably better.

Protocol

  1. Assessment - Baseline metrics, identify smells, classify debt
  2. Safety Net - Verify test coverage, add characterization tests
  3. Red-Green-Refactor - Write failing test, minimal pass, improve design
  4. Pattern Application - SOLID, design patterns, functional transforms
  5. Validation - Measure improvements, verify behavior preserved

Code Smells (5 Categories)

  1. Bloaters: Long Method, Large Class, Long Parameter List
  2. OO Abusers: Switch Statements, Temporary Field
  3. Change Preventers: Divergent Change, Shotgun Surgery
  4. Dispensables: Duplicate Code, Dead Code, Lazy Class
  5. Couplers: Feature Envy, Inappropriate Intimacy

Quick Patterns

OOP: Extract Method, Inline, Replace Temp with Query, Guard Clauses Functional: Map/Filter/Reduce, Pure Functions, Composition, Immutability


Debugging

Core Principle

NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST

Random fixes waste time and create new bugs.

The Four Techniques

1. Systematic Debugging (references/systematic-debugging.md)

  • Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
  • Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
  • Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing
  • Phase 4: Implementation

2. Root Cause Tracing (references/root-cause-tracing.md) Trace backward through call stack to find original trigger.

3. Defense-in-Depth (references/defense-in-depth.md) Validate at every layer: Entry → Business logic → Environment → Debug

4. Verification (references/verification.md) Run command. Read output. Then claim result.

Quick Reference

Bug → systematic-debugging.md (Phase 1-4)
  Error deep in stack? → root-cause-tracing.md
  Found root cause? → defense-in-depth.md
  About to claim success? → verification.md

Red Flags

Stop if thinking:

  • "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
  • "Just try changing X and see"
  • "It's probably X, let me fix that"
  • "Should work now" / "Seems fixed"

References

Code Review

  • references/code-review-reception.md - Response protocols
  • references/requesting-code-review.md - Request process
  • references/verification-before-completion.md - Verification gates

Refactoring

  • references/oop-refactoring-catalog.md - Martin Fowler's patterns
  • references/functional-refactoring-patterns.md - FP transformations
  • references/code-smells-reference.md - 23 smells, 5 categories
  • references/testing-strategies.md - Characterization tests, TDD

Debugging

  • references/systematic-debugging.md - Four-phase framework
  • references/root-cause-tracing.md - Call stack analysis
  • references/defense-in-depth.md - Multi-layer validation
  • references/verification.md - Verification protocols

Bottom Line

  1. Review: Technical rigor over social performance
  2. Refactor: Small, safe, tested, measurable
  3. Debug: Root cause first, fix once
  4. Always: Evidence before claims

Verify. Question. Then implement. Evidence. Then claim.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Claude Code

30.05%
按下载量换算495

OpenCode

22.33%
按下载量换算368

Cursor

16.77%
按下载量换算276

Antigravity

11.64%
按下载量换算192

Gemini CLI

7.75%
按下载量换算128

windsurf

3.69%
按下载量换算61

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

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。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills