Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add devton/agentic-workflow-blueprint --skill thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Thermo Nuclear Code Quality Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/devton-thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
description: Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth.
---
## agentic-workflows-blueprint.workflow.thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review
### Goal
Perform an unusually strict review focused on implementation quality, maintainability, abstraction quality, and codebase health.
### Scope
- **Applies to**: Any code change or pull request diff across the codebase.
- **Does not cover**: Direct code modification or executing fixes (use `thermo-fix`).
### Triggers
- "Run thermo-nuclear review"
- "/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review"
- "Deep code quality audit"
- "Harsh maintainability review"
### Inputs
- `diffScope`: Files or commit range to review.
- `existingRootDoc`: Main instruction file (`AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, etc.).
### Invariants
1. **Be ambitious about structural simplification**: Search for "code judo" moves that make implementation simpler, smaller, and cleaner.
2. **1000 line limit**: Do not let a PR push a file past 1k lines without strong justification.
3. **No random spaghetti growth**: Reject ad-hoc conditionals or one-off branches inserted into unrelated flows.
4. **Clean design over working code**: Do not approve merely because tests pass if the structure is messier.
5. **No silent fallbacks**: Ensure boundary cleanliness and explicit error/state contracts.
### Procedure
1. Identify all changed files in `diffScope`.
2. Evaluate against the **Non-Negotiable Additional Standards**:
- Structural simplification & Code Judo opportunities.
- Decomposition of files approaching 1k lines.
- Elimination of ad-hoc conditionals or leaky abstractions.
- Type contract and boundary cleanliness.
3. Produce a **Severity-Ranked Finding Table**:
- **Blocker**: Structural regressions, 1k+ line file growth, severe spaghetti.
- **High**: Major maintainability or boundary issues.
- **Medium**: Moderate cleanup or abstraction improvements.
- **Low**: Informational nits.
4. Output specific, actionable remedies for every Blocker and High finding.
### Outputs
- Severity-ranked finding table appended to `walkthrough.md` or conversation output.
- Final verdict: **APPROVED** or **FINDINGS REMAIN**.
### Review gate
- No unaddressed Blocker findings.
- No unaddressed High findings.
- Implementation preserves architecture contracts.
### References
- `../../SKILL.md`
- `../thermo-fix/SKILL.md`
- `../radioactive/SKILL.md`
- [Interactive HTML View](./README.html)
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!