SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Code Quality · Version 1.2.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Static Analysis Rule Definition Writer

Make a defensible decision about static rule specification and violation example design with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 5 documented failure modes 4 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Defines implementation-neutral static analysis rules with scope, detection conditions, positive examples, and safe fixes. It grounds the decision in the defect mechanism, affected languages and paths, violating examples, accepted counterexamples, and remediation guidance and explicitly prevents encoding one incident snippet so the rule misses equivalent forms or flags code where the necessary precondition is absent.

₹199 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools.

What this skill helps you do

  • Static rule specification
  • Violation example design
  • Rule false-positive prevention

How Static Analysis Rule Definition Writer works

You provide

The code, its invariants, and how failures currently surface

It inspects

Error paths and lifetime handling for static rule specification

It decides

A violation example design change that makes invalid states unrepresentable

You verify

A deliberately invalid input fails clearly at the boundary

What it checks first

Static Analysis Rule Definition Writer defines implementation-neutral static analysis rules with scope, detection conditions, positive examples, and safe fixes. It grounds the decision in the defect mechanism, affected languages and paths, violating examples, accepted counterexamples, and remediation guidance and explicitly prevents encoding one incident snippet so the rule misses equivalent forms or flags code where the necessary precondition is absent. Use it when the work involves Static rule specification, Violation example design, Rule false-positive prevention.

  1. Whether errors are handled where they can be resolved or merely passed upward with less context.
  2. Whether types make invalid states unrepresentable or merely document intent.
  3. Ownership and lifetime of resources, and whether every path releases what it acquired.
  4. Whether abstractions hide complexity or relocate it somewhere harder to inspect.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • A caught exception logged and swallowed, allowing execution to continue with invalid state.
  • Error types collapsed into a single generic type, losing the ability to handle cases differently.
  • Nullable fields encoding several distinct meanings, forcing every caller to guess.
  • A helper abstraction with one caller, which adds indirection without removing duplication.
  • Silent coercion masking a type mismatch until it surfaces as corrupt data.

Answers it will reject

  • Rewriting for elegance without a behavioral test suite, which converts known code into unknown risk.
  • Adding a lint rule to enforce a pattern nobody has justified.
  • Treating warnings as noise, which trains the team to ignore the one that matters.

Decision rules it applies

  • Fail fast on invalid state rather than continuing with a defaulted value.
  • Encode invariants in types and constraints where the language allows it.
  • Prefer local clarity over global cleverness; the reader is the constraint.

Evidence it asks for

  • Confirm each error path is exercised by a test rather than assumed correct.
  • Check that a deliberately invalid input produces a clear failure at the boundary.
  • Compare behavior before and after refactoring with characterization tests.

The method inside

  1. Extract decisions, facts, and unresolved questions needed for static rule specification.
  2. Organize violation example design around the reader's next decision or action rather than the source order.
  3. Draft rule false-positive prevention with source traceability and no invented behavior.
  4. Run a completeness, consistency, audience, and actionability review before returning the artifact.

Deliverables

  • Static rule specification assessment
  • Violation example design decision and action plan
  • Rule false-positive prevention verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Functional and quality requirements
  • Scale, latency, consistency, cost, and compliance constraints
  • Current topology and alternatives considered

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Apply the static analysis rule definition writer to our current static rule specification work. We need a concrete decision, bounded changes, and evidence that the result is correct.

Expected output

Start with the defect mechanism, affected languages and paths, violating examples, accepted counterexamples, and remediation guidance. The highest-risk failure is encoding one incident snippet so the rule misses equivalent forms or flags code where the necessary precondition is absent. Describe semantic conditions before syntax and include negative examples that differ by one decision-changing fact. Verify the result by testing the definition against a labeled corpus before translating it into a specific analysis engine.

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Static rule specification: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Violation example design: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Rule false-positive prevention: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Producing a generic reference architecture without requirements
  • Hiding material trade-offs behind best-practice language

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.