coding-antipattern-review

Review code, architecture, runtime, tests, and maintainability for evidence-backed anti-patterns.

10|1|Updated Feb 22, 2026

Search Tags:#architecture #code review #anti-patterns #maintainability #runtime #tests

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/marcocello/dot-codex --skill coding-antipattern-review

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: coding-antipattern-review
Source: https://github.com/marcocello/dot-codex/tree/main/skills/coding-antipattern-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/marcocello/dot-codex --skill coding-antipattern-review

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

This Skill helps you review code, architecture, runtime behavior, tests, and proof surfaces for evidence-backed anti-patterns without confusing style preferences or catalog matches with real defects.

Core Features & Use Cases

Code and Architecture Review: Inspect modules, boundaries, responsibilities, and state ownership to find confirmed or suspected design issues.
Runtime and Test Proof Analysis: Evaluate reliability, performance, and test/proof weaknesses using repository evidence, not just static pattern labels.
Maintainability Assessment: Judge function shape, branching, side effects, and abstraction quality when readability or safe refactoring is at risk.
Use Case: A team suspects a brittle service layer or a weak test suite and needs a concise, evidence-backed review with counter-evidence and minimal remediation guidance.

Quick Start

Ask for an evidence-backed anti-pattern review of the relevant repository path or component and include the specific concern you want checked.

Frequently Asked Questions about coding-antipattern-review

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema

How do I find anti-patterns in my code with evidence rather than just style preferences?▼

You can review code, architecture, runtime, and tests for evidence-backed anti-patterns by requiring repository-native evidence and counterexample tracing, classifying candidates as confirmed, suspected, or rejected.

How do I review a brittle service layer for maintainability and design issues?▼

You review a brittle service layer by inspecting modules, boundaries, responsibilities, and state ownership to identify confirmed or suspected design issues backed by repository-native evidence.

What is the best way to check for false confidence in my test suite?▼

The best way to check for false confidence in tests is to evaluate test and proof weaknesses using repository evidence and counterexample tracing, avoiding reliance on static pattern labels alone.

How do I trace counterexamples when reviewing code smells?▼

You trace counterexamples by analyzing runtime behavior and proof surfaces with repository-native evidence, classifying candidates as confirmed, suspected, or rejected anti-patterns.

When should I not use static code analysis for finding anti-patterns?▼

Static code analysis alone is insufficient when evaluating runtime behavior, test reliability, or proof weaknesses, as these require repository-native evidence and counterexample tracing.