code▌

Transform code reviews from gatekeeping to knowledge sharing through constructive feedback, systematic analysis, and collaborative improvement.

Structured code review framework covering quality, security, performance, and testing standards. \n \n Provides eight-step review methodology: context understanding, high-level architecture assessment, detailed code inspection, security audit, performance analysis, testing validation, documentation check, and constructive feedback delivery \n Covers SOLID principles, naming conventions, error handling, input validation, authentication/authorization, SQL injection and XSS prevention, and resource

Tell the agent to zoom out and give broader context or a higher-level perspective.

These are idiomatic FastAPI patterns that may appear problematic but are correct:

Skill by ara.so — Daily 2026 Skills collection.

Simple, pragmatic, opinionated. Only what matters for writing production-grade PostgreSQL queries.

Modern Python tooling, naming conventions, type checking, and documentation standards for maintainable codebases. \n \n Configure ruff for unified linting and formatting, replacing flake8, isort, and black with a single fast tool \n Set up strict type checking with mypy or pyright to catch errors before runtime \n Follow PEP 8 naming conventions: snake_case for functions/variables, PascalCase for classes, SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE for constants \n Write Google-style docstrings for all public APIs wit

Simple, pragmatic, opinionated. Only what matters for writing production-grade Rust code.

Perform comprehensive code reviews of GitLab merge requests, providing actionable feedback on code quality, security, performance, and best practices.

Expert code review of current git changes with a senior engineer lens. \n \n Detects SOLID violations (SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP), architecture smells, and proposes incremental refactors with clear rationale \n Scans for security risks including injection, XSS, AuthZ gaps, race conditions, and unsafe deserialization with exploitability assessment \n Identifies removal candidates and unused code with safe deletion vs. deferred plans and concrete follow-up checkpoints \n Flags code quality issues: e