Check Your Code

Review code quality, pattern adherence, and architecture—focused on "Is this well-written?" not "Will this break?"

<whentouse>

When to Use

Invoke when user says:

• "check your code"
• "code quality review"
• "is this well-written"
• "review code quality"
• "did you follow the patterns"

Different from check-your-work: check-your-work finds bugs and security issues. check-your-code evaluates code quality (pattern adherence, architecture, readability). Both use P0-P3 severity. </whentouse>

<workflow>

Workflow Overview

For Phase 2 details: [references/phase-2-quality-review.md](references/phase-2-quality-review.md) For Phase 3 details: [references/phase-3-red-team.md](references/phase-3-red-team.md) For report format: [templates/quality-report.md](templates/quality-report.md) </workflow>

<agents>

Agent Summary

Phase 2 (5 Parallel)

Phase 3 (Red Team)

</agents>

<severity>

Severity Classification

Note: Quality P0s are less urgent than bug P0s. A quality P0 means "this is very poorly written" not "this will break production." </severity>

<approval_gates>

Approval Gates

</approval_gates>

<scope>

Scope Guidelines

Include: Changed files, related files Exclude: Generated types, node_modules, build artifacts, test files </scope>

<critical_rule>

Critical Rule: Report ALL Issues

NEVER dismiss findings because they are in "pre-existing code".

Report ALL quality issues found in reviewed files regardless of when they were introduced. A pattern violation discovered today that was written months ago is still worth flagging.

Invalid reasoning (DO NOT USE):

• "This is pre-existing code unrelated to the current feature"
• "I didn't write this code in this session"
• "This pattern violation was there before my changes"

Correct approach:

• Report ALL quality issues found in the reviewed files
• Classify by severity (P0-P3) based on impact, not origin
• Let the user decide which to address

</critical_rule>

<execution>

Phase 1: Scope Discovery

1. Use git status to identify modified files
2. Filter to .ts, .tsx files (exclude generated types)
3. Count total lines
4. If >2000 lines, use AskUserQuestion to confirm scope

Phase 2: Quality Review (5 Parallel)

Launch ALL 5 agents in a single message with multiple Task calls. See [references/phase-2-quality-review.md](references/phase-2-quality-review.md) for agent prompts.

Provide each agent:

• List of files to review
• Relevant pattern file content (read claude-patterns/ first)

Phase 3: Red Team Challenge

Launch 1 agent to challenge ALL findings from Phase 2. See [references/phase-3-red-team.md](references/phase-3-red-team.md) for agent prompt.

Provide:

• All findings from Phase 2
• File list for context verification

Output: Validated findings with status (CONFIRMED/DOWNGRADED/DISMISSED/UPGRADED)

Phase 4: Report + User Decision

1. Generate report using [templates/quality-report.md](templates/quality-report.md)
2. Present findings grouped by severity (P0, P1, P2, P3)
3. Use AskUserQuestion:

{
  questions: [
    {
      question: "What would you like to do with these findings?",
      header: "Action",
      options: [
        {
          label: "Improve now",
          description: "Fix the quality issues before committing",
        },
        { label: "Accept as-is", description: "Proceed without changes" },
        {
          label: "Discuss findings",
          description: "Review specific issues in detail",
        },
      ],
      multiSelect: false,
    },
  ];
}

</execution>

<limitations>

What This Skill Does NOT Check

• Bugs and correctness (use check-your-work)
• Security vulnerabilities (use check-your-work)
• Test coverage (use test runner)
• Build errors (use typecheck/lint)
• Runtime behavior (use manual testing)

For comprehensive quality: Run check-your-code + check-your-work + typecheck + tests </limitations>

<quick_reference>

Quick Reference

Pattern files checked:

• CLAUDE.md
• react-typescript-antipatterns.md
• zod-form-patterns.md
• tanstack-query-patterns.md
• settings-patterns.md
• service-refactoring-patterns.md

Key quality dimensions:

• Pattern adherence
• React component quality
• SOLID architecture
• Code readability
• AI over-engineering detection

</quick_reference>

<version_history>

Version History

• v1.3.0 (2026-01-20): Add critical rule for pre-existing issues

- Report ALL quality issues in reviewed files regardless of when introduced - Fix flawed "not my code" dismissal pattern

• v1.2.0 (2025-01-18): AI optimization updates

- Add blockquote summary after title - Eliminate vague pronouns ("That skill" → "check-your-work")

• v1.1.0 (2025-01-11): Switch to P0-P3 severity system

- Replaced A-F grading with P0-P3 severity (matches check-your-work) - Merged Phase 4+5 into single Phase 4

• v1.0.0 (2025-01-11): Initial release

- 5-phase workflow with red-team validation - 5 quality agents + 1 devil's advocate - Progressive disclosure with references/

</version_history>