Llm Artifacts Detection

LLM Artifacts Detection

Detect and flag common patterns introduced by LLM coding agents that reduce code quality.

Detection Categories

Agent Prompts

Use these prompts to spawn focused detection agents:

Tests Agent

Copy code
Analyze the test files for LLM-introduced test quality issues:

1. **DRY Violations**: Look for setup/teardown code repeated across multiple test functions instead of using fixtures or shared helpers. Flag patterns like:
   - Identical object creation in multiple tests
   - Repeated mock configurations
   - Copy-pasted database setup

2. **Library Testing**: Identify tests that validate standard library or framework behavior rather than application code. Signs:
   - No imports from the application codebase
   - Testing built-in functions or third-party library methods
   - Assertions about stdlib behavior

3. **Mock Boundaries**: Flag mocking that's too deep or too shallow:
   - Too deep: Mocking internal implementation details, private methods
   - Too shallow: Mocking at the wrong layer, missing integration points
   - Wrong level: Unit test mocks in integration tests or vice versa

For each issue found, report: [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE

Dead Code Agent

Copy code
Scan the codebase for dead code and cleanup opportunities:

1. **Unused Code**: Find functions, classes, and variables with no references:
   - Functions never called
   - Classes never instantiated
   - Module-level variables never read
   - Unreachable code after returns

2. **TODO/FIXME Comments**: Flag all TODO, FIXME, HACK, XXX comments that indicate incomplete work

3. **Backwards Compat Cruft**: Look for patterns suggesting removed features:
   - Variables renamed with _unused, _old, _deprecated suffixes
   - Re-exports only for backwards compatibility
   - Comments like "# removed", "# legacy", "# deprecated"
   - Empty functions/classes kept "for compatibility"

4. **Orphaned Tests**: Tests for code that no longer exists:
   - Test files with no corresponding source
   - Test functions testing deleted features

For each issue found, report: [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE

Abstraction Agent

Copy code
Review the codebase for over-engineering introduced by LLM agents:

1. **Over-Abstraction**: Identify unnecessary abstraction layers:
   - Wrapper classes that just delegate to one method
   - Interfaces/protocols with only one implementation
   - Abstract base classes with single concrete class
   - Factory functions that always return the same type

2. **Copy-Paste Drift**: Find 3+ similar code blocks that should be parameterized:
   - Nearly identical functions with minor variations
   - Repeated patterns that could be a single function with parameters
   - Similar class methods across multiple classes

3. **Over-Configuration**: Flag configuration for non-configurable things:
   - Feature flags that are never toggled
   - Environment variables always set to one value
   - Config options with no production variation
   - Overly generic code for single use case

For each issue found, report: [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE

Style Agent

Copy code
Check for verbose LLM-style patterns that reduce code clarity:

1. **Obvious Comments**: Comments that restate what the code clearly does:
   - "# increment counter" above counter += 1
   - "# return the result" above return result
   - Docstrings that repeat the function name

2. **Over-Documentation**: Excessive documentation on trivial code:
   - Full docstrings on simple getters/setters
   - Parameter descriptions for obvious args
   - Return value docs for self-evident returns

3. **Defensive Overkill**: Unnecessary defensive programming:
   - try/except around code that cannot fail
   - Null checks on values that can't be null
   - Type checks after type hints guarantee the type
   - Validation of already-validated inputs

4. **Unnecessary Type Hints**: Type hints that add no value:
   - Type hints on obvious literal assignments
   - Redundant hints on variables immediately clear from context
   - Over-annotated internal/local variables

For each issue found, report: [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE

Gates (reporting)

Run these in order so findings are evidence-bound, not inferred. This is the detection-side instance of the Anti-confabulation gate in the review-verification-protocol skill: every [FILE:LINE] must be echoed from a freshly read buffer in this turn, never inferred from the branch name, directory, or memory.

1. Anchor — Set FILE and LINE from an opened buffer, read_file, or equivalent; do not rely only on stale search snippets. Pass: LINE is in range for FILE, and the described issue is visible on that line or its immediate neighbors.
2. Title — ISSUE_TITLE states the defect in plain language (about one short sentence), not a proposed fix. Pass: someone opening FILE at LINE can see why the title applies.
3. Dedup — Before final output, merge rows that share the same FILE:LINE and root cause. Pass: at most one [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE per distinct defect at that anchor.

Usage

1. Load this skill when reviewing AI-generated code
2. If the agent supports subagents, dispatch one per detection category in parallel; otherwise work through the categories sequentially yourself, producing the same [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE findings.
3. Use reference files for detailed criteria and examples
4. Apply Gates (reporting) above, then emit findings as [FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE

When to Apply

• Cleaning up code written by AI coding agents
• Post-generation code review
• Reducing code bloat from iterative AI generation
• Identifying patterns that reduce maintainability