docs: add Claude Code contributor skills for firmware code quality (#2212)

2026-05-30 23:30:18 +03:00
parent ebf0413fe1
commit d83605e003
7 changed files with 330 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+name: refactor-for-review
+description: Producing small, single-concern, reviewable changes. Use when refactoring, cleaning up, restructuring, decomposing, or preparing a change for PR, especially in this multi-contributor AI-assisted codebase that is prone to sprawl diffs. Covers one-concern-per-commit, extracting helpers without widening scope, not bundling unrelated edits, decomposing oversized activities, comment hygiene, and a pre-handoff self-review checklist.
+---
+
+# Refactor for Review
+
+This is a multi-contributor, AI-assisted codebase, and the dominant failure mode
+is the sprawl diff: a one-line intent that touches thirty files. The goal is a
+change a reviewer can verify in one sitting. Cleaner structure that makes the
+next change easier is the win, not lines added.
+
+## One concern per change
+
+- A commit/PR does one thing. A bug fix is not also a rename is not also a
+  reformat. If you spot an unrelated improvement mid-change, leave it or capture
+  it separately; do not fold it in.
+- When the working tree has bundled two changes, separate them with the
+  copy-affected-files-aside, reset, re-apply one concern, restore the rest
+  pattern, not by committing the tangle.
+- Refactor and behavior change do not ride together. A pure refactor must not
+  alter behavior; a behavior change should not drag a refactor along. If both
+  are needed: two commits, refactor first.
+
+## Keep the diff narrow
+
+- Extract a helper to remove real duplication or to name a concept, not to chase
+  abstraction. Three-plus copies, or a block that needs a name to be understood:
+  extract. Two similar lines: leave them.
+- No "while I'm here" scope creep. A signature or type change that ripples to
+  many call sites is its own PR: map every caller first, update them in one
+  topological pass, and land it separately, not as a rider on a feature.
+- Match the surrounding code: comment density, naming, idiom. The diff should
+  read like the file, not like a different author.
+
+## Decompose oversized units
+
+An activity or function that has outgrown one screen of responsibility (multiple
+unrelated state machines, or a file far larger than its siblings) is a
+decomposition candidate. Extract a cohesive sub-responsibility into its own
+unit, as a standalone behavior-preserving refactor, verified on its own, never
+mixed into a feature change.
+
+## Comments earn their place
+
+Comments explain why: an invariant, a defense, a past incident, a non-obvious
+constraint. Never what the next line already says. Delete narration, phase-marker
+comments ("now we loop over..."), and restated function names. If a comment and
+the code it sits on say the same thing, the comment is the thing to cut.
+
+## Self-review before handoff
+
+- [ ] The change does exactly one thing; nothing unrelated rode along.
+- [ ] Refactor and behavior change are not mixed in one commit.
+- [ ] No "while I'm here" creep; rename/signature ripples are split out.
+- [ ] Extractions remove real duplication or name a real concept, not
+      speculative abstraction.
+- [ ] New comments say why, not what; no narration or phase markers.
+- [ ] A reviewer can understand the diff without running it.