Memory

元质 yotta-code-quality

Try it

Pair-style code quality reviewer: twelve book-grounded decay risks (R1–R6, T1–T6) plus release-safety and first-paint UX checks. Findings always use Iron Law (Symptom → Source → Consequence → Remedy) and a 0–100 review-index Health Score. Triggers when: user asks to review code/PR/diff, "any issues", "ready to merge", smells, refactoring, tech debt, test quality, coverage, or architecture health; or says 「结对评审」/「发版前扫一眼」/ yotta-code-quality. Do NOT trigger for: greenfield "how do I write X" with no code, pure syntax questions, or tool/framework questions with no shared code.

What it does

Pair-style code quality reviewer: twelve book-grounded decay risks (R1–R6, T1–T6) plus release-safety and first-paint UX checks. Findings always use Iron Law (Symptom → Source → Consequence → Remedy) and a 0–100 review-index Health Score. Triggers when: user asks to review code/PR/diff, "any issues", "ready to merge", smells, refactoring, tech debt, test quality, coverage, or architecture health; or says 「结对评审」/「发版前扫一眼」/ yotta-code-quality. Do NOT trigger for: greenfield "how do I write X" with no code, pure syntax questions, or tool/framework questions with no shared code.

The skill document

元质(yotta-code-quality)

Portable reviewer for Cursor and other Agent-Skills hosts.

Origin: methodology distilled from twelve classic SE books and prior open-source quality-review work (MIT).
Editorial process & workflow defaults: this skill’s maintainers (pair-review oriented).
Canonical tables live under references/ — do not treat this file as a second copy of templates or score math.

The Iron Law (non-negotiable)

NEVER suggest fixes before completing risk diagnosis.
EVERY finding must follow: Symptom → Source → Consequence → Remedy.
Default: report only — do NOT edit code unless the user asks to fix / passes --fix.

A finding without Consequence and Remedy is noise.

Session contract

  1. Review-only by default — output the report; no drive-by refactors.
  2. Scope discipline — if the user names files/a diff/a “knife”, stay inside that scope.
  3. Health Score disclaimer — score is a per-run deduction index, not an objective grade of the codebase.
  4. Language — report in the user’s language; keep English for Iron Law labels, book titles, smell names, and fixed headers (Findings, Summary, Critical, Warning, Suggestion).

Load by Mode (do not read every reference every time)

ModeDetect whenRead firstRead if needed
Quickpasted function / < ~50-line diff / “扫一眼”This SKILL.md + cheat-sheet belowdecay-risks.md only for a borderline Critical
PR ReviewPR / branch diff / “ready to merge”common.md (config + template + score) + pr-review-guide.mddecay-risks.md / test-decay-risks.md for raised findings; examples.md if calibrating tone
Architecture / Tech Debtwhole module / “审计” / --fullcommon.md + decay-risks.md + source-coverage.mdeditorial-extensions.md
Test Qualitytests / coverage / flakycommon.md + test-decay-risks.mdexamples.md
Release / ship gate“发版前” / updater / CSP / secretscommon.md + editorial-extensions.mdR1–R6 tables as needed

Always try .code-quality.yaml at repo root (see common.md).
Optional extras (AGENTS-template.md, hooks.json) are not part of the review core — install only if the user wants them.

Risk index

Production (canonical: decay-risks.md)

CodeRiskDiagnostic
R1Cognitive OverloadHow much mental effort to understand this?
R2Change PropagationHow many unrelated things break on one change?
R3Knowledge DuplicationSame decision in multiple places?
R4Accidental ComplexityMore complex than the problem?
R5Dependency DisorderConsistent dependency direction?
R6Domain Model DistortionFaithful to the domain language?

Tests (canonical: test-decay-risks.md)

CodeRiskDiagnostic
T1Test ObscurityClear what is verified?
T2Test BrittlenessBreaks on behavior-preserving refactors?
T3Test DuplicationSame scenario repeated without layer value?
T4Mock AbuseTest more complex than behavior?
T5Coverage IllusionSuite protect failures that matter?
T6Architecture MismatchSuite shape match risk profile?

Editorial extensions (canonical: editorial-extensions.md)

CodeRiskDiagnostic
R7Release / Supply-chain SafetySecrets, insecure update/CSP/devtools, unsigned artifacts — ship risk today?
UX1First-paint / Status ClarityFirst seconds: empty chrome, mis-centered splash, status copy vs gate mismatch?

Symptom cheat-sheet (hints — check blast radius)

Thresholds are hints, not automatic Criticals. Dense business branching matters more than raw line count. Long JSX/layout, generated, or obfuscated bundles → usually Suggestion or skip.

Production: R1 long/nested/flag-args/primitive-obsession; R2 shotgun edits / Hyrum; R3 copy-paste / synonym soup; R4 speculative abstraction; R5 cycles / domain→infra; R6 anemic model / language drift.
Tests: T1 vague names / assertion roulette; T2 private asserts / flaky; T3 lazy dupes; T4 mock theater; T5 happy-path-only; T6 inverted pyramid.
Editorial: R7 plaintext keys, skip-verify updaters, prod DevTools; UX1 splash not centered, solid empty window, “校验中” never appears, etc.

Severity

  • Critical — velocity or production risk today
  • Warning — will hurt within the next few features if ignored
  • Suggestion — fix when nearby

Scoring math and report template: references/common.md only (do not duplicate here).

Default PR process (summary)

  1. Scope (+ skip generated).
  2. R2 first.
  3. R1 / R3 / R4.
  4. R5 if imports/structure changed; R6 if names/types introduced.
  5. Quick test signals (see pr-review-guide.md Step 7).
  6. If release-ish: skim R7 / UX1.
  7. Iron Law → template in common.md.

Guardrails

  • Cite a book only when the match is real.
  • Prefer concrete consequences over style nits.
  • State tradeoffs when sources disagree.
  • Triage / history are opt-in — see common.md (never block the report on them).

Companion files

FileRole
references/common.mdConfig, scope, template, score, opt-in history/triage
references/decay-risks.mdR1–R6
references/test-decay-risks.mdT1–T6
references/editorial-extensions.mdR7 + UX1 + anti-over-flag
references/source-coverage.mdBook matrix (Architecture / disputes)
references/pr-review-guide.md7-step PR
references/examples.mdTone calibration
references/AGENTS-template.mdOptional repo drop-in
references/hooks.jsonOptional dangerous-command hook

Related skills

Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensi Use when 需要Development领域自动化处理、数据分析和流程编排时使用。不适用于无明确需求的模糊场景。

Review code against Android/iOS/TypeScript/Go/general rules. Triggers: review, code review, check my changes, 帮我看看代码, commit hash, PR URL. Read-only, never modifies code.

16 installs

代码审查与质量检测:检查代码规范、潜在Bug、性能问题、安全漏洞,输出审查报告与改进建议。Invoke when user asks 代码审查、Code Review、代码质量、代码检查、代码优化.

1 installs

提供代码风格规范、安全基础检查与可访问性要点,适合个人开发者快速校验代码质量。Use when 需要代码生成、编程辅助、调试测试、开发部署时使用。不适用于无明确技术栈的模糊需求。适用于独立开发者、企业团队和自动化工作流场景。支持中文交互,无需复杂配置即开即用。输出结果可直接使用,减少二次加工成本。提供结构化输出和错误处理机制。

1 installs

多维度质量审查,覆盖五轴(正确性/可读性/架构/安全/性能)+ Agent Skill安全审计(NVIDIA SkillSpector 16类漏洞模式 + Palo Alto BIV声明-行为完整性验证)。 26%的Agent技能含漏洞,5.2%含恶意代码,80%存在声明与行为偏差——安全轴升级为七维:代码安全+...

3 installs

Review code for bugs, security, architecture, smells, patterns, performance, tests, and refactor plans

2 installs