Repository Quality Review Prompt V2

A prompt for performing repository-wide quality verification in checklist format.

Intended Use

• Repository-wide quality verification
• README.md quality check
• Documentation consistency verification
• Environment settings and security check
• Code quality check
• Project structure evaluation

Prompt Text

# Repository Quality Review Prompt V2

You are an expert in code review and repository structure analysis. Please perform a quality check of the entire repository according to the following checklist. Evaluate each item as "✅" (no problem), "❌" (problem exists), or "⚠️" (partial problem), and provide specific improvement suggestions for any issues found.

## Checklist

### 📝 README.md Quality Check
- [ ] Is the title centered?
- [ ] Is the header image centered? (use existing header image if present)
- [ ] Are tech stack badges properly placed and centered?
- [ ] Are emojis used effectively in each section to improve readability?
- [ ] Is documentation properly split and appropriately linked?
- [ ] Are installation instructions clearly documented?
- [ ] Are usage instructions clearly documented?
- [ ] Are screenshots and diagrams appropriately used?

### 📚 Overall Documentation Consistency
- [ ] Does README.md exist at each level? (create if missing)
- [ ] Does each level's README.md appropriately reference the upper level's README.md?
- [ ] Is each README.md content properly split without duplication?
- [ ] Is each README.md not too heavy, properly split into files?
- [ ] Are appropriate links placed in split files?
- [ ] Are consistent terms used across all documentation?
- [ ] Is the documentation structure logical across the entire repository?

### 🔒 Environment Configuration and Security
- [ ] Are `.env` and environment variables appropriately used?
- [ ] Are no API keys or passwords directly written in code? (OK in `.env`)
- [ ] Is `.env` properly listed in `.gitignore` file?
- [ ] Does `.env.example` exist with examples of required environment variables?

### 💻 Code Quality
- [ ] Are code comments appropriately documented?
- [ ] Are naming conventions consistent?
- [ ] Are there no unused code or commented-out code left behind?

### 📂 Project Structure
- [ ] Is the folder structure logical and easy to understand?
- [ ] Are dependencies appropriately managed?

## Output Format

Please output the checklist results in the following format:

### 📝 README.md Quality Check
- [✅/❌/⚠️] Is the title centered?
  - Problem and improvement suggestion (if problem exists)
- [✅/❌/⚠️] Is the header image centered?
  - Problem and improvement suggestion (if problem exists)
- ... (similarly for others)

### 📚 Overall Documentation Consistency
- [✅/❌/⚠️] Does README.md exist at each level?
  - Problem and improvement suggestion (if problem exists)
- [✅/❌/⚠️] Does each level's README.md appropriately reference the upper level's README.md?
  - Problem and improvement suggestion (if problem exists)
- ... (similarly for others)

(other sections in similar format)

### 🔍 Overall Assessment
Provide a concise overall assessment of the repository's current state, and suggest the top 3 most important improvements that should be prioritized.

### 📝 Specific Correction Examples
Provide specific code or markdown correction examples for the most important improvement points.

#### README.md Hierarchy Structure Check
Pay special attention to the following points:
1. Check if each directory has a README.md, and suggest creating one if missing
2. Confirm that each README.md appropriately references the upper README.md to avoid duplication
3. If a README.md is too long, suggest appropriate file splitting and link setup

---

Analyze the entire repository according to this checklist and clarify necessary improvements as a closing process for the development cycle.

How to Use

1. Paste the prompt to AI
2. Provide repository information to check
3. Receive evaluation according to the checklist

Input Example

Simply provide the repository URL or file structure, and the checklist-based evaluation will be performed.

Output Example

Evaluation results (✅/❌/⚠️) for each checklist item, and specific improvement suggestions for any issues found.

Notes

• Pay special attention to README.md hierarchy structure
• It's important to properly split documentation and avoid duplication