mathiasandClaude Opus 4.8
1e29c6d1af
release / tag (push) Failing after 1s
Consolidating the divergence between this repo and local-dev's embedded ~/dev/.skills/ (the two had drifted; the 19 overlapping skills were byte-identical). - Import the 17 skills that existed only in local-dev: discovery-framing, stage-gate-review, web-shot, and the 14 superpowers-* skills. This repo is now the superset / single source of truth. - SKILLS_INDEX.md: add rows for the 17. - install.sh + Taskfile.yml: git.d-ma.be host (was stale gitea.d-ma.be, which broke the one-line curl|bash installer post-rename). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
26 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
26 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
# Code Quality Reviewer Prompt Template
|
|
|
|
Use this template when dispatching a code quality reviewer subagent.
|
|
|
|
**Purpose:** Verify implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
|
|
|
|
**Only dispatch after spec compliance review passes.**
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Task tool (general-purpose):
|
|
Use template at requesting-code-review/code-reviewer.md
|
|
|
|
DESCRIPTION: [task summary, from implementer's report]
|
|
PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: Task N from [plan-file]
|
|
BASE_SHA: [commit before task]
|
|
HEAD_SHA: [current commit]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**In addition to standard code quality concerns, the reviewer should check:**
|
|
- Does each file have one clear responsibility with a well-defined interface?
|
|
- Are units decomposed so they can be understood and tested independently?
|
|
- Is the implementation following the file structure from the plan?
|
|
- Did this implementation create new files that are already large, or significantly grow existing files? (Don't flag pre-existing file sizes — focus on what this change contributed.)
|
|
|
|
**Code reviewer returns:** Strengths, Issues (Critical/Important/Minor), Assessment
|