code-quality

Run a four-pass audit covering SOLID architecture, performance, simplicity, and pattern consistency. Unlike diff-based code review, this analyzes whole modules for circular dependencies, Big O complexity, unjustified abstractions, and anti-patterns, then classifies findings by severity.

Build a dependency map by grepping imports and checking whether module A imports B while B imports A, including transitive cycles. Fix them with dependency inversion, extracting shared interfaces to a third module, or introducing a mediator.

Code review checks specific changes in a diff, while a code quality audit analyzes entire modules for architecture, scalability, and complexity. The audit complements coding rules by performing deep analysis rather than enforcing daily guardrails.

Yes, the audit is stack-agnostic and relies on universal software engineering principles like SOLID, Big O analysis, and YAGNI. It does not assume any specific technology, framework, or toolchain.

Quadratic complexity is acceptable for small bounded inputs under roughly 100 items, one-time operations like migrations, or cases where simplicity outweighs performance. It is not acceptable when input size depends on user data or can grow unbounded.

Skip abstractions with only one implementation and one consumer, since a single adapter behind an interface is premature indirection. Extract abstractions only when a second implementation or consumer actually appears.