code-quality▌
samhvw8/dotfiles · updated Apr 8, 2026
Systematic code improvement through review, refactoring, and debugging with verification gates.
Code Quality
Systematic code improvement through review, refactoring, and debugging with verification gates.
Module Selection
| Need | Module | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Receive Feedback | Review | references/code-review-reception.md |
| Request Review | Review | references/requesting-code-review.md |
| Verify Before Claim | Review | references/verification-before-completion.md |
| Reduce Complexity | Refactoring | references/oop-refactoring-catalog.md |
| Functional Patterns | Refactoring | references/functional-refactoring-patterns.md |
| Find Code Smells | Refactoring | references/code-smells-reference.md |
| Test Strategies | Refactoring | references/testing-strategies.md |
| Investigate Bugs | Debugging | references/systematic-debugging.md |
| Trace Root Cause | Debugging | references/root-cause-tracing.md |
| Add Validation | Debugging | references/defense-in-depth.md |
| Verify Fix | Debugging | references/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:
- Get SHAs:
BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD~1),HEAD_SHA=$(git rev-parse HEAD) - Dispatch code-reviewer subagent with: WHAT, PLAN, SHAs, DESCRIPTION
- 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
- Assessment - Baseline metrics, identify smells, classify debt
- Safety Net - Verify test coverage, add characterization tests
- Red-Green-Refactor - Write failing test, minimal pass, improve design
- Pattern Application - SOLID, design patterns, functional transforms
- Validation - Measure improvements, verify behavior preserved
Code Smells (5 Categories)
- Bloaters: Long Method, Large Class, Long Parameter List
- OO Abusers: Switch Statements, Temporary Field
- Change Preventers: Divergent Change, Shotgun Surgery
- Dispensables: Duplicate Code, Dead Code, Lazy Class
- 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 protocolsreferences/requesting-code-review.md- Request processreferences/verification-before-completion.md- Verification gates
Refactoring
references/oop-refactoring-catalog.md- Martin Fowler's patternsreferences/functional-refactoring-patterns.md- FP transformationsreferences/code-smells-reference.md- 23 smells, 5 categoriesreferences/testing-strategies.md- Characterization tests, TDD
Debugging
references/systematic-debugging.md- Four-phase frameworkreferences/root-cause-tracing.md- Call stack analysisreferences/defense-in-depth.md- Multi-layer validationreferences/verification.md- Verification protocols
Bottom Line
- Review: Technical rigor over social performance
- Refactor: Small, safe, tested, measurable
- Debug: Root cause first, fix once
- Always: Evidence before claims
Verify. Question. Then implement. Evidence. Then claim.
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.8★★★★★34 reviews- ★★★★★Omar Chawla· Dec 28, 2024
Keeps context tight: code-quality is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Kiara Sethi· Dec 28, 2024
We added code-quality from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Ama Jackson· Nov 19, 2024
Registry listing for code-quality matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Benjamin Park· Nov 19, 2024
code-quality fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Omar Sethi· Oct 10, 2024
Useful defaults in code-quality — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Kaira Abbas· Oct 10, 2024
code-quality has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Meera Thompson· Sep 17, 2024
Keeps context tight: code-quality is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Yash Thakker· Sep 1, 2024
code-quality fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Dhruvi Jain· Aug 20, 2024
code-quality has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Meera Chen· Aug 8, 2024
I recommend code-quality for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
showing 1-10 of 34