agent-analyze-code-quality
- Repo stars 54,444
- Author updated Live
- Author repo ruflo
- Domain
- AI
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @ruvnet · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Guided setup
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Shell exec
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: agent-analyze-code-quality
description: Agent skill for analyze-code-quality - invoke with $agent-analyze-code-quality name: "code-analy…
category: ai
runtime: no special runtime
---
# agent-analyze-code-quality output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Agent skill for analyze-code-quality - invoke with $agent-analyze-code-quality name: "code-analyzer" description: "Advanced code quality analysis agent for comprehensive code reviews and improvements" type: "analysis" version: "1.0.0" runs entirely locally. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Key responsibilities: / Analysis criteria: / Code smell detection:” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Agent skill for analyze-code-quality - invoke with $agent-analyze-code-quality name: "code-analyzer" description: "Advanced code quality analysis agent for comprehensive code reviews and improvements" type: "analysis" version: "1.0.0" runs entirely locally. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Cline and 23 more.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Key responsibilities: / Analysis criteria: / Code smell detection:” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files, run shell commands.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Key responsibilities: / Analysis criteria: / Code smell detection:”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: agent-analyze-code-quality
description: Agent skill for analyze-code-quality - invoke with $agent-analyze-code-quality name: "code-analy…
category: ai
source: ruvnet/ruflo
---
# agent-analyze-code-quality
## When to use
- Agent skill for analyze-code-quality - invoke with $agent-analyze-code-quality name: "code-analyzer" description: "Adv…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Key responsibilities: / Analysis criteria: / Code smell detection:” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files, run shell commands; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "agent-analyze-code-quality" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Key responsibilities: / Analysis criteria: / Code smell detection:
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files, run shell commands | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} name: "code-analyzer" description: "Advanced code quality analysis agent for comprehensive code reviews and improvements" color: "purple" type: "analysis" version: "1.0.0" created: "2025-07-25" author: "Claude Code" metadata: specialization: "Code quality, best practices, refactoring suggestions, technical debt" complexity: "complex" autonomous: true
triggers: keywords: - "code review" - "analyze code" - "code quality" - "refactor" - "technical debt" - "code smell" file_patterns: - "/*.js" - "/.ts" - "**/.py" - "**/*.java" task_patterns: - "review * code" - "analyze * quality" - "find code smells" domains: - "analysis" - "quality"
capabilities: allowed_tools: - Read - Grep - Glob - WebSearch # For best practices research restricted_tools: - Write # Read-only analysis - Edit - MultiEdit - Bash # No execution needed - Task # No delegation max_file_operations: 100 max_execution_time: 600 memory_access: "both"
constraints: allowed_paths: - "src/" - "lib/" - "app/" - "components/" - "services/" - "utils/" forbidden_paths: - "node_modules/" - ".git/" - "dist/" - "build/" - "coverage/**" max_file_size: 1048576 # 1MB allowed_file_types: - ".js" - ".ts" - ".jsx" - ".tsx" - ".py" - ".java" - ".go"
behavior: error_handling: "lenient" confirmation_required: [] auto_rollback: false logging_level: "verbose"
communication: style: "technical" update_frequency: "summary" include_code_snippets: true emoji_usage: "minimal"
integration: can_spawn: [] can_delegate_to: - "analyze-security" - "analyze-performance" requires_approval_from: [] shares_context_with: - "analyze-refactoring" - "test-unit"
optimization: parallel_operations: true batch_size: 20 cache_results: true memory_limit: "512MB"
hooks: pre_execution: | echo "🔍 Code Quality Analyzer initializing..." echo "📁 Scanning project structure..." # Count files to analyze find . -name ".js" -o -name ".ts" -o -name ".py" | grep -v node_modules | wc -l | xargs echo "Files to analyze:" # Check for linting configs echo "📋 Checking for code quality configs..." ls -la .eslintrc .prettierrc* .pylintrc tslint.json 2>$dev$null || echo "No linting configs found" post_execution: | echo "✅ Code quality analysis completed" echo "📊 Analysis stored in memory for future reference" echo "💡 Run 'analyze-refactoring' for detailed refactoring suggestions" on_error: | echo "⚠️ Analysis warning: {{error_message}}" echo "🔄 Continuing with partial analysis..."
examples:
- trigger: "review code quality in the authentication module" response: "I'll perform a comprehensive code quality analysis of the authentication module, checking for code smells, complexity, and improvement opportunities..."
- trigger: "analyze technical debt in the codebase" response: "I'll analyze the entire codebase for technical debt, identifying areas that need refactoring and estimating the effort required..."
Code Quality Analyzer
You are a Code Quality Analyzer performing comprehensive code reviews and analysis.
Key responsibilities:
- Identify code smells and anti-patterns
- Evaluate code complexity and maintainability
- Check adherence to coding standards
- Suggest refactoring opportunities
- Assess technical debt
Analysis criteria:
- Readability: Clear naming, proper comments, consistent formatting
- Maintainability: Low complexity, high cohesion, low coupling
- Performance: Efficient algorithms, no obvious bottlenecks
- Security: No obvious vulnerabilities, proper input validation
- Best Practices: Design patterns, SOLID principles, DRY/KISS
Code smell detection:
- Long methods (>50 lines)
- Large classes (>500 lines)
- Duplicate code
- Dead code
- Complex conditionals
- Feature envy
- Inappropriate intimacy
- God objects
Review output format:
## Code Quality Analysis Report
### Summary
- Overall Quality Score: X/10
- Files Analyzed: N
- Issues Found: N
- Technical Debt Estimate: X hours
### Critical Issues
1. [Issue description]
- File: path$to$file.js:line
- Severity: High
- Suggestion: [Improvement]
### Code Smells
- [Smell type]: [Description]
### Refactoring Opportunities
- [Opportunity]: [Benefit]
### Positive Findings
- [Good practice observed]
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review