Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

codehealth-mcp

Review how easy code is to maintain using CodeScene MCP. Compare structural health scores before and after edits, identify design issues, and check commits and pull requests for changes that reduce maintainability.

OriginalShow the original description

Real-time structural Code Health via CodeScene MCP — review before edits, verify score deltas after changes, gate commits and PRs. Use when reviewing code quality, refactoring, checking if AI changes degraded a file, or before commit/PR.

See how to install

Good for

  • Reviewing an unfamiliar file before editing
  • Checking whether AI edits reduce maintainability
  • Refactoring while comparing health scores
  • Checking commits and pull requests for structural regressions

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Code Health MCP (CodeScene)

Structural maintainability feedback for AI-assisted coding. Complements style/lint skills (coding-standards, plankton-code-quality) with design-level health scores and regression gates.

Upstream: codescene-oss/codescene-mcp-server Package: @codescene/codehealth-mcp (stdio via npx)

Security and boundaries

Opt-in (ECC): The codescene block in mcp-configs/mcp-servers.json is a template only. ECC plugin installs do not auto-enable bundled MCP servers. Copy the entry into your config only if you want it. You can exclude it during ECC install/sync with ECC_DISABLED_MCPS=codescene,....

Credentials: No bundled token. Set CS_ACCESS_TOKEN yourself (see getting-a-personal-access-token.md in the upstream repo). Never commit tokens to the repo.

What the tools read: When invoked, tools analyze files and git state in the local repository you point them at (paths you pass, plus branch context for analyze_change_set). They do not run by themselves. For standalone mode, follow upstream privacy docs: codescene-mcp-server README and CodeScene policies. Do not use this skill for secrets, credentials, or paths you do not want analyzed.

If the MCP is unavailable (offline, bad token, server crash): Do not invent Code Health scores. Tell the user the check was skipped. Continue only with explicit user approval. Prefer lint/tests/verification-loop for gating when MCP is down. Re-enable checks once the server connects.

When to Use

  • User asks to review code quality, refactor a file, or check if AI changes degraded maintainability
  • Before editing a hotspot, legacy module, or unfamiliar file
  • Before commit or pull request when you need a maintainability safeguard
  • After a large agent-written diff — verify Code Health did not regress
  • Pair with verification-loop, tdd-workflow, or /quality-gate as a structural check (not a replacement for tests/lint)

When to Activate

Same triggers as When to Use above — this heading is what ECC uses for skill auto-activation.

How It Works

1. Connect the MCP server

Copy the codescene entry from mcp-configs/mcp-servers.json into your harness MCP config.

Claude Code (~/.claude.json → mcpServers):

"codescene": {
  "command": "npx",
  "args": ["-y", "@codescene/codehealth-mcp"],
  "env": {
    "CS_ACCESS_TOKEN": "YOUR_CS_ACCESS_TOKEN_HERE"
  }
}

Project-scoped: merge the same block into .mcp.json at the repo root.

Token setup is documented in the upstream repo (link above). Standalone mode does not require a paid CodeScene platform account for the four tools listed below. Restart the session and confirm the codescene server is connected before relying on scores.

2. Call standalone tools only

ToolWhen to use
code_health_reviewFull structural analysis before modifying a file
code_health_scoreQuick numeric score after each change (delta check)
pre_commit_code_health_safeguardBlock commits that introduce Code Health regressions
analyze_change_setBranch-level check before opening a PR

Do not call platform-only tools (e.g. repository-wide technical debt hotspot lists). Do not reference delta_analysis — not available on standalone.

3. Interpret scores (1–10)

RangeMeaningAgent behavior
9.0–10.0Green — healthySafer to extend; still prefer vertical slices
4.0–8.9Yellow — debtTread carefully; no drive-by refactors
1.0–3.9Red — severe debtNarrow scope only

4. Run the feedback loop

Before touching a file

  1. Run code_health_review on the target path.
  2. Record baseline score and listed code smells.
  3. Plan the smallest change that addresses the task.

Scope by score: below 5 — minimal diff only; 5–7 — no broad refactors; above 7 — safer to refactor, still verify after each edit.

After each change

  1. Run code_health_score on the same file.
  2. Compare to the baseline from code_health_review.
  3. If the score regressed, fix before continuing. Never mark the task done while the score is lower than when you started.

Before every commit — run pre_commit_code_health_safeguard on the repository path.

Before a PR — run analyze_change_set against the base branch (e.g. main).

Examples

Example: Flask maintainability improvement

On pallets/flask, an agent loop using only standalone tools:

  1. code_health_review on a target module (baseline 4.82)
  2. Targeted refactor addressing listed smells
  3. code_health_score after each edit
  4. pre_commit_code_health_safeguard before commit
  5. analyze_change_set before PR

Result: Code Health 4.82 → 9.1 (free standalone token only).

Example: AGENTS.md enforcement block

Paste into the project AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md:

## Code Health (CodeScene MCP)

Before modifying any file: run `code_health_review`, note score and issues.

- Score below 5: problematic range — scope changes narrowly.
- Score 5–7: warning range — no broad refactors.

After each change: run `code_health_score` to verify delta.

- If score regressed: fix before continuing; never declare done if score dropped.

Before every commit: run `pre_commit_code_health_safeguard`.

Before PR: run `analyze_change_set`.

Example: anti-patterns vs correct loop

# BAD: Edit first, check later
[large refactor without code_health_review]

# BAD: Ignore score drop
"Tests pass" → mark task done while Code Health decreased

# BAD: Broad refactor on red-score file (below 5)
Drive-by cleanup across the module

# GOOD: review → small change → score → commit safeguard → analyze_change_set

Pairing with ECC

ECC skill / flowCode Health MCP role
coding-standardsStyle/naming; Code Health = structure/complexity
plankton-code-qualityWrite-time lint/format; Code Health = pre/post edit structural gate
verification-loop / /quality-gateAdd structural regression check before "done"
security-reviewSecurity vs maintainability — use both when relevant
tdd-workflowTests pass ≠ healthy design — check score after refactors

Context tip: ECC recommends keeping MCP count low. Enable codescene when doing substantive edits; disable when not needed.

Related Skills

  • coding-standards — baseline conventions
  • plankton-code-quality — write-time lint/format hooks
  • verification-loop — build/test/lint gate
  • tdd-workflow — test-first development
  • security-review — security checklist
  • documentation-lookup — library docs via Context7 (orthogonal)

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

accessibility

FreeSummary

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-eval

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

agent-introspection-debugging

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 16, 2026

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC283.5KUpdated Oct 5, 2026

See all skills by affaan-m

Report a problem with this skill