scoobydont-666/shared-claude-skills/code-quality
- community
Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.
Analyze code performance, security, testability and architecture; trace concrete defects and propose maintainable, evidence-backed fixes.
Install
npx vskill@latest install scoobydont-666/shared-claude-skills/code-qualitySKILL.md
Code Quality Skill
Deep analysis of code quality across four domains. Works alongside code-consistency which handles surface-level triage; this skill goes deep.
Domains
| Domain | Reference | Focus | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | references/performance.md | Algorithmic complexity, resource management, concurrency | |
| Security | references/security.md | Injection, auth, secrets, input validation, attack surface | |
| Testability | references/testability.md | Design for testing, coverage strategy, dependency management | |
| Architecture | references/architecture.md | SOLID, coupling/cohesion, layering, abstraction quality |
Workflow
Step 1 — Scope the Analysis
Determine which domain(s) the user needs. If unspecified, do a quick scan across all four and focus on the domain(s) with the most findings.
| Trigger | Domain(s) to load | |
|---|---|---|
| "Is this fast enough?" / "optimize" / "slow" | Performance | |
| "Is this secure?" / "vulnerability" / "audit" | Security | |
| "How do I test this?" / "hard to mock" / "coverage" | Testability | |
| "Is this well-designed?" / "refactor" / "clean up" | Architecture | |
| "Review this code" / "is this good?" / "can this be better" | All four (quick scan) | |
| Escalation from code-consistency quality triage | Flagged domain(s) |
Step 2 — Load Reference Files
Read the reference file(s) for the relevant domain(s) before analysis.
Step 3 — Analyze
Apply the domain-specific checklists and patterns from the reference files. Always consider:
- Context: Library vs application, hot path vs cold path, prototype vs production
- Language: Apply language-specific patterns where they exist
- Trade-offs: Every suggestion has a cost. Name it explicitly.
Step 4 — Report
Quick Scan Report (all four domains)
When scanning broadly, output a summary table:
Then detail the critical findings. Suggested findings go in a collapsible section or follow-up if the user wants them.
Deep Dive Report (single domain)
When analyzing one domain deeply:
- Executive summary — 2-3 sentences on overall quality
- Critical findings — numbered, with code references and fix examples
- Suggested improvements — grouped by impact
- Trade-off analysis — what you'd gain and lose from each suggestion
- Recommended next steps — prioritized action list
Grading Scale
| Grade | Meaning | |
|---|---|---|
| A | Production-quality. Minor style suggestions only. | |
| B | Good. A few real issues but fundamentally sound. | |
| C | Functional but concerning. Multiple issues that will compound. | |
| D | Significant problems. Refactoring recommended before shipping. | |
| F | Dangerous. Critical issues (security holes, data loss risk, severe perf). |
Use +/- modifiers. Grade relative to the stated context (prototype gets more lenient grading than production code).
Severity Levels
Same as code-consistency for interoperability:
| Level | Label | Meaning | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔴 | CRITICAL | Must fix. Bug risk, security hole, or severe performance issue. | |
| 🟡 | SUGGEST | Should fix. Real improvement but not blocking. | |
| 🔵 | NOTE | Informational. Context or trade-off acknowledgment. |
Cross-Domain Patterns
These apply across all four domains:
- Dead code: Unreachable branches, unused imports, commented-out code blocks
- Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity >10 in a single function, nesting >3 levels
- Duplication: Same logic in 3+ places without abstraction
- Naming/intent mismatch: Function name promises one thing, implementation does another
- Missing documentation: Public API without doc comments, complex algorithms without
explanation, non-obvious business rules without context
Reference Files
Read before deep-diving into a domain:
- `references/performance.md` — Complexity analysis, memory/allocation patterns,
concurrency, I/O optimization, profiling strategies
- `references/security.md` — OWASP patterns, injection prevention, auth/authz,
secrets management, input validation, supply chain
- `references/testability.md` — Dependency injection, seam identification, mock
strategies, coverage analysis, test pyramid, design-for-test patterns
- `references/architecture.md` — SOLID deep-dive, coupling metrics, layering
patterns, abstraction quality, module boundaries, technical debt indicators
Security
- Security scanPassed, 95 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
- Model reviewPassed
Quality evaluation
- Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.
Source
- SKILL.md in the repositoryCheckingskills/code-quality/SKILL.md
Popularity
- Repository stars
- 1
- 7-day trend score
- 3
Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Not refreshed yet.
Works with
Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- GitHub Copilot
- Windsurf
- Codex
- Gemini CLI
- Cline
- Amp
- Roo Code
- Goose
- Continue
- Kilo Code
- Junie
- Trae
- OpenHands
- Qwen Code
- AI Agent
- Tabnine Chat
- Sourcegraph Cody
- Amazon Q
- Firebase Genkit
- Sweep
- Devin
- Phind
- Mentat
- Claude Desktop
- Aider
- GPT Pilot
- Plandex
- bolt.new
- v0
- Replit Agent
- Anse
- TypingMind
- BetterChatGPT
- LibreChat
- Warp AI
- Pieces
- Fig AI
Embed badge
[](https://verified-skill.com/skills/scoobydont-666/shared-claude-skills/code-quality)