review-tooling
The review-tooling skill analyzes a project's development infrastructure by scanning for configuration files related to linters, formatters, pre-commit hooks, test runners, and CI/CD pipelines. It identifies which tools are present and flags gaps in tooling coverage, returning findings as structured data without making any changes to the project.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turbo /tmp/review-tooling && cp -r /tmp/review-tooling/claude/skills/review-tooling ~/.claude/skills/review-toolingSKILL.md
# Review Tooling Detect dev tooling infrastructure and flag gaps. Analysis only. Does not install or configure tools. ## Scope Tooling review always operates at the project level since config files live at the project root. Scope parameters (diff commands, file lists) are accepted but ignored. When called standalone, use the git repository root as the project root (fall back to the current working directory if not in a git repo). ## Step 1: Detect Tooling Search for config files in the project root and subdirectories (exclude vendored directories like `node_modules/`, `vendor/`, `.build/`). Classify findings into five categories: ### Linters | Config file pattern | Tool | |---|---| | `.eslintrc*`, `eslint.config.*` | ESLint | | `biome.json`, `biome.jsonc` | Biome (linter + formatter) | | `deno.json`, `deno.jsonc` with `lint` config | Deno lint | | `.swiftlint.yml` | SwiftLint | | `ruff.toml`, `[tool.ruff]` in `pyproject.toml` | Ruff | | `.pylintrc`, `pylintrc` | Pylint | | `.flake8`, `[flake8]` in `setup.cfg` | Flake8 | | `.rubocop.yml` | RuboCop | | `.golangci.yml`, `.golangci.yaml` | golangci-lint | | `clippy.toml`, `.clippy.toml` | Clippy | | `ktlint*`, `.editorconfig` with `ktlint` | ktlint | ### Formatters | Config file pattern | Tool | |---|---| | `.prettierrc*`, `prettier.config.*` | Prettier | | `biome.json`, `biome.jsonc` | Biome (linter + formatter) | | `deno.json`, `deno.jsonc` with `fmt` config | Deno fmt | | `.swift-format`, `.swiftformat` | swift-format / SwiftFormat | | `[tool.black]` in `pyproject.toml`, `pyproject.toml` with `[tool.ruff.format]` | Black / Ruff formatter | | `rustfmt.toml`, `.rustfmt.toml` | rustfmt | | `gofmt` / `goimports` (check CI config or `Makefile` for usage) | gofmt | | `.clang-format` | ClangFormat | ### Pre-commit Hooks | Config file pattern | Tool | |---|---| | `.husky/` directory | Husky | | `.lintstagedrc*`, `lint-staged` key in `package.json` | lint-staged | | `.pre-commit-config.yaml` | pre-commit framework | | `.git/hooks/pre-commit` (non-sample) | Custom git hook | | `.lefthook.yml`, `lefthook.yml` | Lefthook | ### Test Runners | Config file pattern | Tool | |---|---| | `jest.config.*`, `jest` key in `package.json` | Jest | | `vitest.config.*` | Vitest | | `pytest.ini`, `[tool.pytest]` in `pyproject.toml`, `conftest.py` | pytest | | `Package.swift` with test targets, `*Tests/` directories | Swift Testing / XCTest | | `_test.go` files | Go testing | | `Cargo.toml` with `[dev-dependencies]`, `tests/` directory | Rust tests | | `.rspec`, `spec/` directory | RSpec | | `phpunit.xml*` | PHPUnit | ### CI/CD Pipelines | Config file pattern | Tool | |---|---| | `.github/workflows/*.yml` | GitHub Actions | | `.gitlab-ci.yml` | GitLab CI | | `Jenkinsfile` | Jenkins | | `.circleci/config.yml` | CircleCI | | `bitbucket-pipelines.yml` | Bitbucket Pipelines | | `.travis.yml` | Travis CI | | `azure-pipelines.yml` | Azure Pipelines | These tables are not exhaustive. If the project uses a tool not listed here, detect it by recognizing its config files. ## Step 2: Identify the Project Ecosystem Determine the primary language(s) and ecosystem from config files and source code. This informs which tooling gaps are relevant. A Go project without Prettier is not a gap. A Node.js project without a linter is. | Signal | Ecosystem | |---|---| | `package.json` | Node.js / JavaScript / TypeScript | | `Package.swift`, `*.xcodeproj` | Swift / Apple | | `pyproject.toml`, `setup.py`, `requirements.txt` | Python | | `go.mod` | Go | | `Cargo.toml` | Rust | | `Gemfile` | Ruby | | `pom.xml`, `build.gradle*` | Java / Kotlin | | `deno.json`, `deno.jsonc` | Deno | ## Step 3: Analyze Gaps For each category, assess whether the project has adequate tooling for its ecosystem: - **Present and configured** — tool detected with config file - **Partially configured** — tool detected but config appears minimal or default - **Missing** — no tool detected for a category where one is standard for the ecosystem When assessing pre-commit hooks, also check whether detected linters and formatters are wired into the hooks. A project with ESLint and Prettier but no pre-commit hook means formatting issues can slip into commits. When assessing CI/CD, check whether the pipeline runs tests and linters. A CI config that only builds but never tests is a gap. ## Output Format Return findings as a numbered list. For each finding: ``` ### [P<N>] <title (imperative, <=80 chars)> **Category:** <Linters | Formatters | Pre-commit Hooks | Test Runners | CI/CD> <one paragraph: what is missing or misconfigured and why it matters for this project> ``` After all findings, add: ``` ## Tooling Summary | Category | Status | Tool(s) | |---|---|---| | Linters | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> | | Formatters | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> | | Pre-commit Hooks | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> | | Test Runners | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> | | CI/CD | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> | ## Overall Verdict **Tooling:** <well-equipped | gaps found> <1-3 sentence summary> ``` If all categories are adequately covered, report that and highlight what the project does well. ## Priority Levels - **P0** — No test runner detected for a project with source code - **P1** — No linter for the primary language, or CI/CD pipeline exists but skips tests - **P2** — No formatter, no pre-commit hooks, or linter/formatter not wired into hooks - **P3** — No CI/CD pipeline, or minor config gaps
For each reviewer question on a PR, recall implementation reasoning and compose a raw answer. Use when the user asks to \"answer reviewer questions\", \"draft answers to PR questions\", or \"explain reviewer questions\".
Apply findings by making the suggested code changes. Applies accepted verdicts, escalates ambiguous findings to the user, and offers to note genuine improvements for later. Use when the user asks to \"apply findings\", \"apply fixes\", \"apply suggestions\", \"apply accepted findings\", \"fix the findings\", or \"apply the review results\".
Project-wide health audit pipeline that fans out to all analysis skills in parallel, evaluates findings, and produces a unified report at .turbo/audit.md. Use when the user asks to \"audit the project\", \"run a full audit\", \"project health check\", \"audit my code\", \"codebase audit\", or \"comprehensive review\".
Shared changelog conventions and formatting rules referenced by $create-changelog and $update-changelog. Not typically invoked directly.
Enforce mirror, reuse, and symmetry principles to keep new code consistent with surrounding code. Use when writing new code in an existing codebase, adding new features, refactoring, or making any code changes.
Run autonomous task execution using the codex CLI. Use when the user asks to \"codex exec\", \"run codex exec\", \"execute a task with codex\", or \"delegate to codex\".
Run AI-powered code review using the codex CLI. Use when the user asks to \"codex review\", \"run codex review\", or \"review a commit with codex\".
Shared commit message rules and technical constraints referenced by $stage-commit and $commit-staged. Not typically invoked directly.