元质·代码质量评审

SKILL开发
开发 未标注权限 许可证不明确
安装这个技能

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.

一句话选型结论

按资料字段整理

元质·代码质量评审是开发类的 Agent Skill,安装方式未标注,权限级别未标注,许可证不明确,有可直接复制的安装命令。技能本质是给模型读的说明书,效果取决于模型与客户端;装完先用一个小任务验证,再放进正式流程。

分类开发 安装方式未标注 权限级别未标注权限 许可证许可证不明确
累计安装 未标注 本周 未标注
GitHub 星标 未标注 仓库 未标注
下载量 未标注 技能市场下载数
权限级别 未标注权限 安装前请确认风险范围
许可证 许可证不明确 未说明

安装

未标注
在支持 Skills 的客户端里执行,装完问一句「你有哪些技能」验证
skillhub install user_0d6b02f6/yotta-code-quality
  1. 1
    确认客户端支持

    确认你的客户端支持 Skills(Claude、Codex、Cursor 等),并升级到较新的版本。

  2. 2
    拿到技能文件

    执行上面的命令安装;也可以把仓库里的 SKILL.md 手动放进客户端的 skills 目录。

  3. 3
    刷新技能列表

    重新打开客户端,或刷新技能列表,让新放进来的技能被加载。

  4. 4
    验证是否生效

    问一句「你有哪些技能」,确认列表里出现它,再拿一个小任务试跑。

技能档案

开发
字段来自技能仓库与公开索引,中文说明由本站标注
作者 / 维护方user_0d6b02f6仓库 未标注 · 版本 未标注
宿主客户端未标注技能可被这些客户端加载
安装方式未标注安装包 community
权限级别未标注权限安装前请确认风险范围
许可证未说明许可证不明确,商用前请自行确认条款
仓库可用性available技能仓库当前是否可访问
最近核验2026-11-06上游最后核验时间 · 数据更新 2026-11-06
正文体量7.1 KBSKILL.md 原文大小,越大说明说明书写得越细

典型使用场景

3 类
按分类整理的常见用法,具体以 SKILL.md 为准
写代码与改 bug

按需求补代码、定位并修掉报错。

读仓库与生成改动

让模型读懂项目结构,再给出可落地的改动。

跑测试与排查故障

按现象排查问题,补测试用例并复跑。

选择建议

装之前先看这几条
按条目字段给出的判断,不替你决定用不用

值得选的地方

  • 有可直接复制的安装命令,不用自己翻文档找入口。

先想清楚的地方

  • 没有标注权限级别,实际能做什么要装好后确认。
  • 许可证不明确,商用或二次分发前先到仓库确认条款。
  • 没有做站内核验,内容以作者仓库为准。
  • 技能只是说明书,实际效果取决于模型与客户端,装完先用小任务试一遍。

更适合

  • 需要在开发场景里给模型补一套做法的人。
  • 愿意先读一遍 SKILL.md、确认它会让模型做什么的人。

不太适合

  • 对许可证要求很严、必须明确可商用的人。
  • 只想装完就自动变强、不打算看说明书的人。

同类对比

6 个同类
同分类里挑最接近的几条,字段以各自详情页为准
技能权限级别安装方式累计安装宿主客户端安装命令
元质·代码质量评审当前 未标注权限 未标注 未标注 未标注 有
技能审查员 浏览器控制 ClawHub 市场 877.9 万 OpenClaw 有
Vercel React 最佳实践 浏览器控制 GitHub 仓库 849.1 万 Codex、Claude、Cursor 有
GitHub 代码协作 联网访问 ClawHub 市场 763.3 万 OpenClaw 有
网页设计指南 联网访问 GitHub 仓库 668.6 万 Codex、Claude、Cursor 有
本体论 只读 ClawHub 市场 663.7 万 OpenClaw 有

SKILL.md 全文

7.1 KB
模型实际读到的说明书原文,来自技能仓库

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)

Mode Detect when Read first Read if needed
Quick pasted function / < ~50-line diff / “扫一眼” This SKILL.md + cheat-sheet below decay-risks.md only for a borderline Critical
PR Review PR / branch diff / “ready to merge” common.md (config + template + score) + pr-review-guide.md decay-risks.md / test-decay-risks.md for raised findings; examples.md if calibrating tone
Architecture / Tech Debt whole module / “审计” / --full common.md + decay-risks.md + source-coverage.md editorial-extensions.md
Test Quality tests / coverage / flaky common.md + test-decay-risks.md examples.md
Release / ship gate “发版前” / updater / CSP / secrets common.md + editorial-extensions.md R1–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)

Code Risk Diagnostic
R1 Cognitive Overload How much mental effort to understand this?
R2 Change Propagation How many unrelated things break on one change?
R3 Knowledge Duplication Same decision in multiple places?
R4 Accidental Complexity More complex than the problem?
R5 Dependency Disorder Consistent dependency direction?
R6 Domain Model Distortion Faithful to the domain language?

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

Code Risk Diagnostic
T1 Test Obscurity Clear what is verified?
T2 Test Brittleness Breaks on behavior-preserving refactors?
T3 Test Duplication Same scenario repeated without layer value?
T4 Mock Abuse Test more complex than behavior?
T5 Coverage Illusion Suite protect failures that matter?
T6 Architecture Mismatch Suite shape match risk profile?

Editorial extensions (canonical: editorial-extensions.md)

Code Risk Diagnostic
R7 Release / Supply-chain Safety Secrets, insecure update/CSP/devtools, unsigned artifacts — ship risk today?
UX1 First-paint / Status Clarity First 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

File Role
references/common.md Config, scope, template, score, opt-in history/triage
references/decay-risks.md R1–R6
references/test-decay-risks.md T1–T6
references/editorial-extensions.md R7 + UX1 + anti-over-flag
references/source-coverage.md Book matrix (Architecture / disputes)
references/pr-review-guide.md 7-step PR
references/examples.md Tone calibration
references/AGENTS-template.md Optional repo drop-in
references/hooks.json Optional dangerous-command hook
references/faq.md Common questions and troubleshooting
references/walkthroughs.md Complex review walkthroughs

常见问题

5 问
答案由本站依据条目字段整理
元质·代码质量评审怎么安装?

在支持 Skills 的客户端里执行:skillhub install user_0d6b02f6/yotta-code-quality。安装方式为未标注。装完刷新技能列表或重开客户端。

元质·代码质量评审支持哪些客户端?

资料没有标注宿主客户端,但只要客户端支持 Skills(Claude、Codex、Cursor 等),一般都能加载。

元质·代码质量评审权限高吗,安全吗?

权限级别为未标注权限。安装前先看它会读取或写入哪些内容。

元质·代码质量评审收费吗?

本站不代收费用,也没有标注具体价格。是否收费取决于技能本身和所用的模型或客户端,正式使用前按作者说明确认。

元质·代码质量评审用什么许可证?

许可证标注为 未说明(许可证不明确)。商用或二次分发前请到仓库确认条款原文。

热门专题

按场景挑技能
全部专题 →

技能内容以作者仓库为准;分类、权限级别与许可证状态的中文说明为中文整理,最近核验 2026-11-06。