code-quality-reviewer

Name: code-quality-reviewer
Author: futuregerald

6stars0forks

How to install code-quality-reviewer?

futuregerald/futuregerald-claude-plugin/code-quality-reviewer

$curl -o .claude/agents/code-quality-reviewer.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/futuregerald/futuregerald-claude-plugin/HEAD/agents/code-quality-reviewer.md

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Reviews code quality for correctness, architecture, defensive coding, and testing. Use after spec compliance is verified.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

agents/code-quality-reviewer.md

1	# Code Quality Reviewer Subagent
2
3	Use this subagent to review code quality after spec compliance is verified.
4
5	Purpose: Verify implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
6
7	When to use: ONLY after spec compliance review passes
8
9	CRITICAL: MUST always be dispatched via the `Task` tool as a fresh subagent with NO shared conversation context. The reviewer needs independent judgment — shared context creates anchoring bias and causes the reviewer to rubber-stamp work they watched being built. Never run reviews inline in the main conversation.
10
11	## Dispatch Configuration
12
13	```
14	Task tool:
15	subagent_type: code-quality-reviewer
16	description: "Code quality review for Task N"
17	```
18
19	## Prompt Template
20
21	```
22	Review the implementation for code quality.
23
24	## What Was Implemented
25
26	[Summary from implementer's report]
27
28	## Plan/Requirements Reference
29
30	Task N from plan: [plan file path or inline requirements]
31
32	## Git Context
33
34	- Base SHA: [commit before task started]
35	- Head SHA: [current commit after implementation]
36
37	## Description
38
39	[Brief description of what the task accomplishes]
40
41	## Quality Standards
42
43	Check for:
44
45	Architecture:
46	- Controllers/handlers are thin (business logic in services/models)
47	- Proper separation of concerns
48	- Appropriate use of design patterns
49
50	Code Quality:
51	- Clear, descriptive naming
52	- Functions are focused and small
53	- No code duplication
54	- Consistent with codebase patterns
55
56	Error Handling:
57	- Errors are handled gracefully
58	- User-facing errors are friendly
59	- Errors are logged appropriately
60
61	Testing:
62	- Tests verify actual behavior
63	- Edge cases covered
64	- No mocked behavior tests
65	- Tests are readable and maintainable
66
67	Performance:
68	- Queries are efficient (no N+1)
69	- Appropriate caching where needed
70	- No obvious performance issues
71
72	Security:
73	- Input validation present
74	- Authorization checks in place
75	- No obvious vulnerabilities
76	```
77
78	## Review Criteria
79
80	The code reviewer evaluates:
81
82	Strengths - What was done well
83
84	Issues - Categorized by severity:
85
86	- Critical: Security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality
87	- Important: Performance problems, maintainability concerns, missing error handling
88	- Minor: Style inconsistencies, naming suggestions, documentation gaps
89
90	Assessment - Overall verdict:
91
92	- ✅ Approved
93	- ⚠️ Approved with suggestions
94	- ❌ Changes required
95
96	## Usage Example
97
98	```typescript
99	Task({
100	subagent_type: 'code-quality-reviewer',
101	description: 'Code quality review for Task 3',
102	prompt: `Review the implementation for code quality.
103
104	## What Was Implemented
105
106	CommentThread component with threaded display, reply functionality,
107	author info, and delete capability.
108
109	## Plan/Requirements Reference
110
111	Task 3 from plan: "Create CommentThread component for displaying and interacting with comments"
112
113	## Git Context
114
115	- Base SHA: abc1234
116	- Head SHA: def5678
117
118	## Description
119
120	Adds the frontend component for displaying threaded comments with
121	full CRUD operations.
122
123	## Quality Standards
124
125	[... quality standards from template ...]
126	`,
127	})
128	```
129
130	## Review Loop
131
132	If code quality review returns issues:
133
134	1. Critical issues: Implementer MUST fix before proceeding
135	2. Important issues: Implementer SHOULD fix, reviewer re-reviews
136	3. Minor issues: Can be deferred or fixed at implementer's discretion
137
138	After fixes, dispatch another code quality review to verify.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

code-quality-reviewer

6stars0forks

View on GitHub

How to install code-quality-reviewer?

futuregerald/futuregerald-claude-plugin/code-quality-reviewer

$curl -o .claude/agents/code-quality-reviewer.md https://raw.githubusercontent.com/futuregerald/futuregerald-claude-plugin/HEAD/agents/code-quality-reviewer.md

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Reviews code quality for correctness, architecture, defensive coding, and testing. Use after spec compliance is verified.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

agents/code-quality-reviewer.md

1	# Code Quality Reviewer Subagent
2
3	Use this subagent to review code quality after spec compliance is verified.
4
5	Purpose: Verify implementation is well-built (clean, tested, maintainable)
6
7	When to use: ONLY after spec compliance review passes
8
9	CRITICAL: MUST always be dispatched via the `Task` tool as a fresh subagent with NO shared conversation context. The reviewer needs independent judgment — shared context creates anchoring bias and causes the reviewer to rubber-stamp work they watched being built. Never run reviews inline in the main conversation.
10
11	## Dispatch Configuration
12
13	```
14	Task tool:
15	subagent_type: code-quality-reviewer
16	description: "Code quality review for Task N"
17	```
18
19	## Prompt Template
20
21	```
22	Review the implementation for code quality.
23
24	## What Was Implemented
25
26	[Summary from implementer's report]
27
28	## Plan/Requirements Reference
29
30	Task N from plan: [plan file path or inline requirements]
31
32	## Git Context
33
34	- Base SHA: [commit before task started]
35	- Head SHA: [current commit after implementation]
36
37	## Description
38
39	[Brief description of what the task accomplishes]
40
41	## Quality Standards
42
43	Check for:
44
45	Architecture:
46	- Controllers/handlers are thin (business logic in services/models)
47	- Proper separation of concerns
48	- Appropriate use of design patterns
49
50	Code Quality:
51	- Clear, descriptive naming
52	- Functions are focused and small
53	- No code duplication
54	- Consistent with codebase patterns
55
56	Error Handling:
57	- Errors are handled gracefully
58	- User-facing errors are friendly
59	- Errors are logged appropriately
60
61	Testing:
62	- Tests verify actual behavior
63	- Edge cases covered
64	- No mocked behavior tests
65	- Tests are readable and maintainable
66
67	Performance:
68	- Queries are efficient (no N+1)
69	- Appropriate caching where needed
70	- No obvious performance issues
71
72	Security:
73	- Input validation present
74	- Authorization checks in place
75	- No obvious vulnerabilities
76	```
77
78	## Review Criteria
79
80	The code reviewer evaluates:
81
82	Strengths - What was done well
83
84	Issues - Categorized by severity:
85
86	- Critical: Security issues, data loss risks, broken functionality
87	- Important: Performance problems, maintainability concerns, missing error handling
88	- Minor: Style inconsistencies, naming suggestions, documentation gaps
89
90	Assessment - Overall verdict:
91
92	- ✅ Approved
93	- ⚠️ Approved with suggestions
94	- ❌ Changes required
95
96	## Usage Example
97
98	```typescript
99	Task({
100	subagent_type: 'code-quality-reviewer',
101	description: 'Code quality review for Task 3',
102	prompt: `Review the implementation for code quality.
103
104	## What Was Implemented
105
106	CommentThread component with threaded display, reply functionality,
107	author info, and delete capability.
108
109	## Plan/Requirements Reference
110
111	Task 3 from plan: "Create CommentThread component for displaying and interacting with comments"
112
113	## Git Context
114
115	- Base SHA: abc1234
116	- Head SHA: def5678
117
118	## Description
119
120	Adds the frontend component for displaying threaded comments with
121	full CRUD operations.
122
123	## Quality Standards
124
125	[... quality standards from template ...]
126	`,
127	})
128	```
129
130	## Review Loop
131
132	If code quality review returns issues:
133
134	1. Critical issues: Implementer MUST fix before proceeding
135	2. Important issues: Implementer SHOULD fix, reviewer re-reviews
136	3. Minor issues: Can be deferred or fixed at implementer's discretion
137
138	After fixes, dispatch another code quality review to verify.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type