본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

plankton-code-quality

Set up Plankton hooks in Claude Code to format and lint files after each edit. Route remaining violations to Claude for fixes, verify the results, and protect linter settings from changes that weaken checks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Write-time code quality enforcement using Plankton — auto-formatting, linting, and Claude-powered fixes on every file edit via hooks. Use when setting up write-time formatting, linting, or auto-fix hooks on file edits.

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Formatting and linting files after every edit
  • Setting up automatic fixes for remaining violations
  • Protecting linter configuration from rule weakening
  • Applying quality checks across multiple languages

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md12.6 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Plankton Code Quality Skill

Integration reference for Plankton (credit: @alxfazio), a write-time code quality enforcement system for Claude Code. Plankton runs formatters and linters on every file edit via PostToolUse hooks, then spawns Claude subprocesses to fix violations the agent didn't catch.

When to Use

  • You want automatic formatting and linting on every file edit (not just at commit time)
  • You need defense against agents modifying linter configs to pass instead of fixing code
  • You want tiered model routing for fixes (Haiku for simple style, Sonnet for logic, Opus for types)
  • You work with multiple languages (Python, TypeScript, Shell, YAML, JSON, TOML, Markdown, Dockerfile)

How It Works

Three-Phase Architecture

Every time Claude Code edits or writes a file, Plankton's multi_linter.sh PostToolUse hook runs:

Phase 1: Auto-Format (Silent)
├─ Runs formatters (ruff format, biome, shfmt, taplo, markdownlint)
├─ Fixes 40-50% of issues silently
└─ No output to main agent

Phase 2: Collect Violations (JSON)
├─ Runs linters and collects unfixable violations
├─ Returns structured JSON: {line, column, code, message, linter}
└─ Still no output to main agent

Phase 3: Delegate + Verify
├─ Spawns claude -p subprocess with violations JSON
├─ Routes to model tier based on violation complexity:
│   ├─ Haiku: formatting, imports, style (E/W/F codes) — 120s timeout
│   ├─ Sonnet: complexity, refactoring (C901, PLR codes, oxlint complexity) — 300s timeout
│   └─ Opus: type system, deep reasoning (unresolved-attribute) — 600s timeout
├─ Re-runs Phase 1+2 to verify fixes
└─ Exit 0 if clean, Exit 2 if violations remain (reported to main agent)

What the Main Agent Sees

ScenarioAgent seesHook exit
No violationsNothing0
All fixed by subprocessNothing0
Violations remain after subprocess[hook] N violation(s) remain2
Advisory (duplicates, old tooling)[hook:advisory] ...0

The main agent only sees issues the subprocess couldn't fix. Most quality problems are resolved transparently.

Config Protection (Defense Against Rule-Gaming)

LLMs will modify .ruff.toml or biome.json to disable rules rather than fix code. Plankton blocks this with three layers:

  1. PreToolUse hook — protect_linter_configs.sh blocks edits to all linter configs before they happen
  2. Stop hook — stop_config_guardian.sh detects config changes via git diff at session end
  3. Protected files list — .ruff.toml, biome.json, .shellcheckrc, .yamllint, .hadolint.yaml, and more

Package Manager Enforcement

A PreToolUse hook on Bash blocks legacy package managers:

  • pip, pip3, poetry, pipenv → Blocked (use uv)
  • npm, yarn, pnpm → Blocked (use bun)
  • Allowed exceptions: npm audit, npm view, npm publish

Setup

Quick Start

Note: Plankton requires manual installation from its repository. Review the code before installing.

# Install core dependencies
brew install jaq ruff uv

# Install Python linters
uv sync --all-extras

# Start Claude Code — hooks activate automatically
claude

No install command, no plugin config. The hooks in .claude/settings.json are picked up automatically when you run Claude Code in the Plankton directory.

Per-Project Integration

To use Plankton hooks in your own project:

  1. Copy .claude/hooks/ directory to your project
  2. Copy .claude/settings.json hook configuration
  3. Copy linter config files (.ruff.toml, biome.json, etc.)
  4. Install the linters for your languages

Language-Specific Dependencies

LanguageRequiredOptional
Pythonruff, uvty (types), vulture (dead code), bandit (security)
TypeScript/JSbiome; oxlint (>= 1.37.0) when using complexitysemgrep, knip (dead exports)
Shellshellcheck, shfmt—
YAMLyamllint—
Markdownmarkdownlint-cli2—
Dockerfilehadolint (>= 2.12.0)—
TOMLtaplo—
JSONjaq—

Pairing with ECC

Complementary, Not Overlapping

ConcernECCPlankton
Code quality enforcementPostToolUse hooks (Prettier, tsc)PostToolUse hooks (20+ linters + subprocess fixes)
Security scanningAgentShield, security-reviewer agentBandit (Python), Semgrep (TypeScript)
Config protection—PreToolUse blocks + Stop hook detection
Package managerDetection + setupEnforcement (blocks legacy PMs)
CI integration—Pre-commit hooks for git
Model routingManual (/model opus)Automatic (violation complexity → tier)

Recommended Combination

  1. Install ECC as your plugin (agents, skills, commands, rules)
  2. Add Plankton hooks for write-time quality enforcement
  3. Use AgentShield for security audits
  4. Use ECC's verification-loop as a final gate before PRs

Avoiding Hook Conflicts

If running both ECC and Plankton hooks:

  • ECC's Prettier hook and Plankton's biome formatter may conflict on JS/TS files
  • Resolution: disable ECC's Prettier PostToolUse hook when using Plankton (Plankton's biome is more comprehensive)
  • Both can coexist on different file types (ECC handles what Plankton doesn't cover)

Configuration Reference

Plankton's .claude/hooks/config.json controls all behavior:

{
  "languages": {
    "python": true,
    "shell": true,
    "yaml": true,
    "json": true,
    "toml": true,
    "dockerfile": true,
    "markdown": true,
    "typescript": {
      "enabled": true,
      "js_runtime": "auto",
      "biome_nursery": "warn",
      "semgrep": true
    }
  },
  "phases": {
    "auto_format": true,
    "subprocess_delegation": true
  },
  "subprocess": {
    "tiers": {
      "haiku":  { "timeout": 120, "max_turns": 10 },
      "sonnet": { "timeout": 300, "max_turns": 10 },
      "opus":   { "timeout": 600, "max_turns": 15 }
    },
    "volume_threshold": 5
  }
}

Key settings:

  • Disable languages you don't use to speed up hooks
  • volume_threshold — violations > this count auto-escalate to a higher model tier
  • subprocess_delegation: false — skip Phase 3 entirely (just report violations)

Environment Overrides

VariablePurpose
HOOK_SKIP_SUBPROCESS=1Skip Phase 3, report violations directly
HOOK_SUBPROCESS_TIMEOUT=NOverride tier timeout
HOOK_DEBUG_MODEL=1Log model selection decisions
HOOK_SKIP_PM=1Bypass package manager enforcement

References

  • Plankton (credit: @alxfazio)
  • Plankton REFERENCE.md — Full architecture documentation (credit: @alxfazio)
  • Plankton SETUP.md — Detailed installation guide (credit: @alxfazio)

ECC v1.8 Additions

Copyable Hook Profile

Set strict quality behavior:

export ECC_HOOK_PROFILE=strict
export ECC_QUALITY_GATE_FIX=true
export ECC_QUALITY_GATE_STRICT=true

Language Gate Table

  • TypeScript/JavaScript: Biome preferred, Prettier fallback
  • Python: Ruff format/check
  • Go: gofmt

Config Tamper Guard

During quality enforcement, flag changes to config files in same iteration:

  • biome.json, .eslintrc*, prettier.config*, tsconfig.json, pyproject.toml

If config is changed to suppress violations, require explicit review before merge.

CI Integration Pattern

Use the same commands in CI as local hooks:

  1. run formatter checks
  2. run lint/type checks
  3. fail fast on strict mode
  4. publish remediation summary

Health Metrics

Track:

  • edits flagged by gates
  • average remediation time
  • repeat violations by category
  • merge blocks due to gate failures

Gabe's addition: oxlint complexity + ratchet ceiling (JS/TS)

Closes the JS/TS gap in the model-routing table above. Python complexity (ruff C901, PLR) already routes to Sonnet. JS/TS had no equivalent rule turned on by default.

Turn on oxlint's complexity rule when using it

oxlint's complexity rule (source: eslint's complexity rule, ported) lives in the "restriction" category, which oxlint does not enable by default. It must be turned on by hand. Verified against Oxlint's complexity rule (2026-08-27): default option is max: 20. The rule is available in oxlint >= 1.37.0.

The skill's Language-Specific Dependencies table keeps oxlint optional for TypeScript/JS generally. When adopting the complexity rule, use oxlint >= 1.37.0 and treat it as a required dependency. Add the rule to the supported oxlint configuration the project already uses (.oxlintrc.json, .oxlintrc.jsonc, oxlint.config.ts, or oxlint.config.mts). If none exists, create one; do not create a second configuration file in the same directory.

Measure the codebase's current worst complexity score before choosing the initial enforced ceiling. The template below is intentionally incomplete: replace <MEASURED_CEILING> with that score, optionally plus a small amount of headroom, before committing the "error" gate. Oxlint's default of 20 is a long-term target, not a safe universal starting ceiling.

{
  "rules": {
    "complexity": ["error", { "max": "<MEASURED_CEILING>" }]
  }
}

Replace the placeholder before running oxlint; it is not a valid numeric threshold until the repository has been measured. See the ratchet section below for how the ceiling gets set on a real codebase.

Model-routing row

Add oxlint complexity violations to the same row as the existing Python entry in the Phase 3 subprocess table:

├─ Sonnet: complexity, refactoring (C901, PLR codes, oxlint complexity), 300s timeout

Same tier as Python's C901/PLR. A complexity violation is a refactoring job either way, language does not change the model tier.

The ratchet-ceiling technique

Source: Hunk PR #861 (merged 2026-08-26, verified against the PR's own diff and description via the GitHub API, not paraphrased from memory). Hunk turned on oxlint's complexity rule with "error", { "max": 80 } in .oxlintrc.json. Their own worst score at the time was 78 (App), next was 76 (validateFileViewLayout). From the PR body: "This is intentionally an initial regression ceiling rather than the long-term target... so 80 adds enforcement without grandfathering or suppressions. The ceiling can be ratcheted downward as existing hotspots are simplified." And: "A global ceiling does not prevent a function below 80 from growing toward it."

The technique, as actually run in that PR:

  1. Measure the current worst complexity score in the codebase (oxlint reports it when the rule fires).
  2. Set the ENFORCED ceiling to a value at least as high as that worst score, not to oxlint's own default of 20. Add a small amount of headroom if needed so the initial enable does not fail CI on a score you have not fixed yet (hunk used 80 against a worst of 78).
  3. Commit that as "error", wired into the existing lint CI step. This is a real gate from the first commit, not a suggestion.
  4. Never grandfather. The ceiling is global. A function sitting at 40 today is not exempt, it still cannot cross the ceiling later. That is the whole point: catch growth, not just today's worst offenders.
  5. Never blanket-suppress. No per-file or per-function disable comments to make a violation go away. Fix it or leave it under the ceiling.
  6. Each time a flagged hotspot is refactored below the ceiling, re-measure the global maximum across the whole codebase. Lower the ceiling by hand only to a value that remains at least as high as every remaining function's score (plus any deliberate headroom). This is a manual step done as its own commit, not automated. It is how the ceiling moves toward the linter's real default of 20 over time instead of sitting at the codebase's worst score forever.

One caveat, stated plainly: the PR itself went straight from "rule off" to "error" enforcement in one commit. It did not stage through a report-only or warn-only phase first. Starting with the rule set to "warn" for one CI run before flipping it to "error" is a reasonable staging step if a team has never measured its own worst score and does not want a surprise CI failure, but that staging step is Gabe's own prudent practice, not something verified in hunk's PR. Say so if you use it, do not attribute it to the source.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • 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/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • 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/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 5일 업데이트

affaan-m의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고