Mastra code-standards

Code quality standards and style guide for reviewing pull requests

install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/mastra-ai/mastra
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/mastra-ai/mastra "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/templates/template-github-review-agent/workspace/skills/code-standards" ~/.claude/skills/mastra-ai-mastra-code-standards && rm -rf "$T"
manifest: templates/template-github-review-agent/workspace/skills/code-standards/SKILL.md
source content

Code Standards Review

When reviewing code, follow this structured process:

Step 1: Critical Issues

Check for issues that MUST be fixed before merging:

  • Logic bugs and incorrect behavior
  • Missing error handling for failure cases
  • Race conditions or concurrency issues
  • Unhandled edge cases (null, undefined, empty arrays, boundary values)
  • Breaking API changes without migration path

Step 2: Code Quality

Evaluate overall code quality:

  • Functions should do one thing and be reasonably sized (< 50 lines preferred)
  • Avoid code duplication — look for repeated patterns that should be abstracted
  • Use descriptive, meaningful names for variables, functions, and types
  • Prefer explicit types over
    any
    in TypeScript
  • Ensure proper use of async/await (no floating promises, proper error propagation)

Step 3: Style Guide Conformance

Check against the style guide in

references/style-guide.md
:

  • Naming conventions
  • Code organization and import ordering
  • Comment quality (explain "why", not "what")

Step 4: Linting Flags

Flag these patterns:

  • var
    usage (should be
    const
    or
    let
    )
  • Leftover
    console.log
    or
    debugger
    statements
  • Commented-out code blocks
  • Magic numbers without named constants
  • TODO
    or
    FIXME
    comments without issue references

Output Format

Structure your feedback as:

  1. Summary: 1-2 sentence overview of the changes and overall quality
  2. Critical Issues: Must-fix problems with file path and line numbers
  3. Suggestions: Improvements that would make the code better
  4. Positive Notes: Good patterns and decisions worth acknowledging