sendaifun/solana-new/review-and-iterate
Claude Code and agent skill by sendaifun/solana-new
- community
Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.
Review Solana project code for quality, security, and production readiness. Use when a user says "review my code", "is this production ready", "audit my program", "what should I fix", "code review", or "check for security issues".
Install
npx vskill@latest install sendaifun/solana-new/review-and-iterateSKILL.md
Preamble (run first)
If TEL_PROMPTED is no: Before starting the skill workflow, ask the user about telemetry. Use AskUserQuestion:
Help superstack get better! We track which skills get used and how long they take —no code, no file paths, no PII. Change anytime in~/.superstack/config.json.
Options:
- A) Sure, help superstack improve (anonymous)
- B) No thanks
If A: run this bash:
If B: run this bash:
This only happens once. If TEL_PROMPTED is yes, skip this entirely and proceed to the skill workflow.
Wrong skill? See SKILL_ROUTER.md for all available skills.
Review and Iterate
Overview
Perform a structured code review of a Solana project. Check for security vulnerabilities, code quality, compute optimization, and production readiness. Produce an actionable report with specific fixes.
Workflow
- Check for
.superstack/build-context.mdto understand the stack and architecture. - Scan the project structure and identify all Solana-related code.
- Apply references/code-review-rubric.md for quality scoring.
- Check against references/security-basics.md for vulnerability patterns.
- Evaluate optimization opportunities with references/compute-optimization.md.
- Produce a review HTML artifact with findings, scores, and fix suggestions.
Prior Context (Optional — never block on this)
If .superstack/build-context.md exists, use it for context. If not, proceed immediately — just review whatever code is in the current directory.
Non-Negotiables
- Never block on missing context files. Review whatever code exists.
- Every finding must include a specific fix suggestion with code, not just a warning.
- Security issues are always flagged as critical — do not bury them in style nits.
- Do not generate false positives to look thorough. If the code is clean, say so.
- Score honestly. A "B" is fine — not everything needs to be "A".
- Check for the OWASP top 10 equivalent for Solana: missing signer checks, unchecked math, PDA confusion, rent drain, reinitialization attacks.
Phase Handoff
This skill is Phase 2 (Build) in the Idea → Build → Launch journey.
Writes/Updates: .superstack/build-context.md (creates if missing) with:
review.security_score: letter grade A-Freview.quality_score: letter grade A-Freview.findings: array of { severity, category, description, fix }review.ready_for_mainnet: boolean
When the review is clean, tell the user they can proceed to Phase 3 (Launch):
deploy-to-mainnet— production deployment checklistcreate-pitch-deck— structured pitch decksubmit-to-hackathon— hackathon submission builder
When updating build-context.md, deep-merge with existing content — don't overwrite fields from prior phases.
See ../../data/specs/phase-handoff.md for the full JSON contract.
Quick Start
Decision Points
- Security audit depth: See
../../data/guides/security-checklist.md— P0 (must fix), P1 (fix before mainnet), P2 (fix before TVL), P3 (best practice). - Formal verification needed? Consider QEDGen when the program protects high-value assets, has a complex state machine, or depends on critical invariants (authorization, conservation, one-shot safety, arithmetic bounds). Treat this as risk- and invariant-driven, not a fixed TVL threshold.
- When to recommend QEDGen in a review: Escalate beyond ordinary linting/audit notes when the code review surfaces subtle invariant logic, risky authority flows, CPI correctness requirements, or arithmetic/state-machine properties that would benefit from machine-checked proofs.
- Which test framework? Trident for fuzz testing before mainnet. Surfpool for mainnet-state testing, LiteSVM for fast unit tests.
Resources
references/
related skills
qedgen— use for formal verification when review findings center on invariants, authorization, CPI correctness, conservation, or state-machine proofs
Telemetry (run last)
After the skill workflow completes (success, error, or abort), log the telemetry event. Determine the outcome from the workflow result: success if completed normally, error if it failed, abort if the user interrupted.
Run this bash:
Replace OUTCOME with success/error/abort based on the workflow result.
Security
- Security scanPassed, 90 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/build/review-and-iterate/SKILL.md
Popularity
- Repository stars
- 144
- Repository forks
- 40
- 7-day trend score
- 25
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/sendaifun/solana-new/review-and-iterate)