code▌

Generated from affaan-m/everything-claude-code on 2026-03-20

Code review framework following Sentry engineering practices for pull requests and code quality assessment. \n \n Covers six key problem areas: runtime errors, performance bottlenecks, side effects, backwards compatibility, ORM query issues, and security vulnerabilities \n Includes design assessment guidance for component interactions, architectural alignment, and requirement conflicts \n Requires appropriate test coverage across functional, integration, and end-to-end tests with verification of

Pragmatic coding standards emphasizing conciseness, single responsibility, and direct solutions. \n \n Covers five core principles: Single Responsibility, DRY, KISS, YAGNI, and the Boy Scout rule for incremental code improvement \n Provides naming conventions for variables, functions, booleans, and constants designed to self-document intent without excessive comments \n Enforces function discipline: max 20 lines, one level of abstraction, minimal arguments, and no unexpected side effects \n Incl

Structured patterns and techniques for improving code quality through safe, behavior-preserving refactoring. \n \n Covers common code smells including long methods, deeply nested conditionals, primitive obsession, and feature envy with before/after examples \n Provides core refactoring techniques: extract method, replace conditional with polymorphism, introduce parameter objects, and replace magic numbers with constants \n Emphasizes safe refactoring workflow: ensure test coverage first, make sm

You are a code migration expert specializing in transitioning codebases between frameworks, languages, versions, and platforms. Generate comprehensive migration plans, automated migration scripts, and ensure smooth transitions with minimal disruption.

Catches common bugs in LangGraph state management, graph structure, and async patterns. \n \n Identifies 20+ critical issues including state mutations, missing reducers, invalid conditional edge returns, and checkpointer configuration errors \n Covers state schema problems like improper use of add_messages , full-state returns, and Pydantic models without annotations \n Detects graph structure issues: missing entry points, unreachable nodes, incomplete conditional paths, and undeclared Command d

Context-driven code reviews prioritizing quality, security, testability, and maintainability. \n \n Organizes feedback into four priority levels: blockers (must fix), major issues (should fix), minor improvements, and suggestions, with clear templates and rationale for each \n Covers five core review areas: logic correctness, security risks, test coverage, performance issues, and error handling; explicitly excludes style nitpicking and formatting \n Recommends reviewing code in chunks under 400

Structured code review for security, performance, correctness, and maintainability across PR diffs and file changes. \n \n Audits security risks including SQL injection, XSS, CSRF, authentication flaws, and credential exposure \n Identifies performance issues like N+1 queries, memory leaks, algorithmic complexity, and resource leaks \n Checks correctness for edge cases, race conditions, error handling, and type safety gaps \n Works standalone with diffs and file paths; integrates with source con

Write-time code quality enforcement with auto-formatting, linting, and Claude-powered subprocess fixes on every file edit. \n \n Three-phase architecture: silent auto-formatting, violation collection, and tiered model routing (Haiku for style, Sonnet for complexity, Opus for types) to fix unfixable issues \n Supports Python, TypeScript, Shell, YAML, JSON, TOML, Markdown, and Dockerfile with 20+ linters including ruff, biome, shellcheck, and hadolint \n Config protection via PreToolUse and Stop h

Automated code review across security, performance, quality, and testing dimensions. \n \n Analyzes pull requests for four distinct review categories: security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, hardcoded secrets), performance issues (N+1 queries, memory leaks, missing caches), code quality (duplication, SRP violations, poor naming), and test coverage gaps \n Flags issues at three severity levels (critical, suggestions, nits) with explanations and suggested fixes for each finding \n Includes a