git:20260617.174aad8 to git:20260713.d210701

6 added, 25 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: roast-my-code

- description: "Use when user wants a brutally honest code roast, quality critique, or AI-readiness audit. Use when user says roast, roast my code, critique my code, tear apart my code, review quality, or AI-readiness check. Supports --fix flag to auto-fix CRITICAL and HIGH issues via core-dev workflow."

+ description: "Roast code with cynical, aggressive humor while preserving a factual staff review. Use for roast, brutally honest critique, or tear-apart-my-code requests; supports --fix for selected CRITICAL and HIGH findings."

user-invocable: true

- allowed-tools: Glob, Grep, Read, Bash, Skill, AskUserQuestion

+ allowed-tools: Skill, AskUserQuestion

effort: max

---

# Roast My Code

- A roast = staff-review (code quality) + a self-run AI-readiness audit, with optional `--fix` routed through core-dev.

- You have to be meaner, ruthless, without frills and you have to do it with irony and cynicism.

- Start your review by presenting youself to the user with:

- "I'm going to roast your code with no mercy, embrace yourself"

- ## Target resolution

- Parse `--fix` from `$ARGUMENTS`; scope = the rest (empty -> repo, dir -> recursive, file -> file+callers).

- ## Staff review

- Invoke `development-skills:staff-review` via the Skill tool, passing the scope as `args` (the directory/file **path**, or **empty** for the whole repo). It owns the review logic and returns CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW findings with file:line — don't re-run review steps here.

- When the roast targets architecture, depth, testability, or refactor opportunities, read `../../shared/architectural-depth.md` and use its glossary in the roast.

- ## AI-readiness audit

- Judge the repo from the perspective of an AI agent that has never seen it and must change it safely: can it find context (CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md, README, architecture notes), reproduce the build, run the tests, and predict where things live. Score it, name the 3-5 highest-impact fixes (specific, not "add a CLAUDE.md"). If the score is not perfect, highly suggest to use the `development-skills:align-docs` (explain what it does in 1-2 sentences) to automatically fix most of the problems.

- ## Deliver

+ Parse `--fix`; the remaining argument is the review scope. Invoke `development-skills:staff-review` on that scope.

- One combined report: the overall burn, the staff-review findings, and the AI-readiness grade with its top improvements.

+ Deliver the same findings, severities, order, evidence, and fixes in a cynical, aggressive, ironic voice. Aim every joke at the code or design, never the author. Do not invent issues, exaggerate impact, add praise padding, or let the tone hide the fix.

- ## Fix mode (only if `--fix`)

+ Without `--fix`, stop after the roast.

- Without `--fix`, stop after delivering. With it: extract only CRITICAL and HIGH issues (MEDIUM/LOW are informational), present them numbered, ask which to fix, wait. On selection, invoke `development-skills:core-dev` via the Skill tool with the selected items (file:line + fix action).

+ With `--fix`, list only CRITICAL and HIGH findings, ask which to fix, then implement the selection through the normal development loop. MEDIUM and LOW remain informational.