Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

new-skill

Scaffold a new brooks-lint analysis skill so it passes `npm run validate` and `npm run evals` on the first try — generates skills/{name}/SKILL.md (with the mandatory "Do NOT trigger for:" clause and a Process section citing guide step ranges) plus skills/{name}/{name}-guide.md (sequentially numbered steps), then appends paired eval scenarios. Triggers when the maintainer asks to "add a new skill", "scaffold a skill", or "create a brooks-lint mode". Do NOT trigger for: editing an existing skill's content, adding a single eval to an existing skill, or authoring skills for some other plugin.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md2.8 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

brooks-lint — New Skill Scaffold

Skill name comes from $ARGUMENTS (kebab-case, e.g. brooks-security). If empty, ask for the name and a one-line purpose first.

Follow the repo's "Adding a New Skill" checklist exactly:

  1. Create skills/{name}/SKILL.md with frontmatter — name, a description that ends with a Do NOT trigger for: clause (validate-enforced for shipped skills; omitting it causes false triggering), and a Process section of 3–6 bullets that cite the guide's step ranges inline (e.g. Scan risks (Steps 1–6 of the guide)). Mirror the structure of an existing skill such as skills/brooks-review/SKILL.md (Setup → Process → Mode line).
  2. Create skills/{name}/{name}-guide.md with sequentially numbered steps — no gaps, no duplicates. Sub-steps like Step 2a are allowed. The guide owns the detailed steps; the SKILL.md Process is just an orientation skeleton.
  3. Wire the framework. The new SKILL.md Setup section must Read the relevant _shared/ files (common.md for Iron Law + Report Template, plus decay-risks.md / test-decay-risks.md as applicable) — _shared/ is NOT auto-loaded.
  4. Add eval coverage to evals/evals.json: append with the next sequential id at least one happy-path scenario (with the relevant risk code in expected_output) and at least one false-positive scenario flagged no_risk_codes: true. Each scenario needs id, name, prompt, expected_output, mode, files.
  5. Validate. npm run validate (structure + step continuity + Process-section presence) and npm run evals (eval schema). Fix until both pass.
  6. Local-test. cp -r skills/* ~/.claude/skills/brooks-lint/ (if you've symlinked ~/.claude/skills/brooks-lint to the repo, skip this — edits are already live), trigger the new skill in a Claude session, verify the Iron Law output, then restore the marketplace copy: /plugin marketplace update → /plugin install brooks-lint@brooks-lint-marketplace.

Do NOT register a slash command by hand — short forms are auto-installed by the session-start hook. Report the files created and the validate/evals results.

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

Architecture audit that maps module dependencies, checks layering integrity, and flags structural decay across a codebase, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks to audit architecture, review folder/module structure, check for circular imports, understand how the codebase is organized, or asks "does this follow clean architecture?" or "why does everything depend on everything?". Also triggers for onboarding requests: "explain this codebase to a new developer" or "give me a codebase tour" (use onboarding mode). Do NOT trigger for: PR-level code review (use brooks-review) or line-level refactoring questions — this skill analyzes structural/module-level concerns, not individual functions.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1.5KUpdated Oct 22, 2026

Tech debt assessment that identifies, classifies, and prioritizes maintainability problems — helping teams build a refactoring roadmap — drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks about tech debt, refactoring priorities, what to clean up first, or asks "why is this so hard to change?", "what should we fix first?", or "how do I justify refactoring to management?". Do NOT trigger for: server health checks, HTTP /health endpoints, Kubernetes probes, database health, or application uptime — "health" in those contexts is infrastructure, not code quality. Also not for single-function refactoring questions.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1.5KUpdated Oct 22, 2026

Maintenance orchestrator for the brooks-lint plugin itself. Runs a sequential subagent pipeline — author → eval → QA → trigger-audit → release — to add or edit a skill, refresh the eval suite, keep the four manifests + all README translations + CHANGELOG + AGENTS/GEMINI in sync, audit trigger boundaries, and cut releases. Drives the five agents in .codex/agents/ (skill-author, eval-curator, consistency-qa, trigger-boundary-auditor, release-manager). Triggers when the maintainer asks to work ON brooks-lint itself: "add a new skill", "edit the brooks-debt guide", "update the eval suite", "fix the trigger descriptions", "make this change and validate it", "release brooks-lint", "bump and publish", and follow-ups: "re-run", "re-validate", "update that skill", "redo the audit", "do the X part again". Do NOT trigger for: USING the brooks-lint analysis skills on some target codebase (that's brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test / brooks-health / brooks-sweep); generic questions about brooks-lint that don't ask to change it; or maintenance of a different plugin.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1.5KUpdated Oct 22, 2026

Maintenance orchestrator for the brooks-lint plugin itself. Runs a sequential subagent pipeline — author → eval → QA → trigger-audit → release — to add or edit a skill, refresh the eval suite, keep the four manifests + all README translations + CHANGELOG + AGENTS/GEMINI in sync, audit trigger boundaries, and cut releases. Drives the five agents in .claude/agents/ (skill-author, eval-curator, consistency-qa, trigger-boundary-auditor, release-manager). Triggers when the maintainer asks to work ON brooks-lint itself: "add a new skill", "edit the brooks-debt guide", "update the eval suite", "fix the trigger descriptions", "make this change and validate it", "release brooks-lint", "bump and publish", and follow-ups: "re-run", "re-validate", "update that skill", "redo the audit", "do the X part again". Do NOT trigger for: USING the brooks-lint analysis skills on some target codebase (that's brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test / brooks-health / brooks-sweep); generic questions about brooks-lint that don't ask to change it; or maintenance of a different plugin.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1.5KUpdated Oct 22, 2026

Combined codebase health dashboard that scores a project across all four quality dimensions — PR quality, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — in a single pass, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user wants an overall quality assessment, asks "how healthy is this codebase?", "run all the checks", "I need a health score before the release", or wants to onboard a new team with a quality overview. Do NOT trigger for: server health checks, HTTP health endpoints, Kubernetes liveness/readiness probes, database health, or application uptime. Also do not trigger when the user specifically requests only one dimension — use the corresponding focused skill instead (brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test).

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1.5KUpdated Oct 22, 2026

PR code review that surfaces decay risks, design smells, and maintainability issues with concrete Symptom → Source → Consequence → Remedy findings, drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user asks to review code, check a PR, shares a diff or pastes code asking "does this look right?" / "any issues here?" / "ready to merge?", or asks for feedback on a function, class, or file. Also triggers when user mentions: code smells / refactoring / clean architecture / DDD / SOLID principles / Hyrum's Law / deep modules / tactical programming / conceptual integrity / Brooks's Law / Mythical Man-Month / second system effect. Do NOT trigger for: questions about how to write code from scratch, language syntax questions, or framework/tool questions where no existing code is shared.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1.5KUpdated Oct 22, 2026

See all skills by hyhmrright

Report a problem with this skill