本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

brooks-harness

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.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md7.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

brooks-lint — Maintenance Harness (Orchestrator)

This skill orchestrates work on the brooks-lint repo itself. It runs a sequential subagent pipeline: each stage is a dedicated agent defined in .codex/agents/. Use the available Codex collaboration tools with the matching agent role; inherit the parent model and permissions. If custom roles are not loaded, pass the role's developer_instructions from its TOML file to a standard subagent. Stages run sequentially. Every editing agent must preserve other contributors' changes and own only the files assigned by the orchestrator.

Pipeline

[orchestrator]
   Phase 0  context check
   Phase 1  classify request → select stages
   Phase 2  run selected stages in order, with a QA loop-back:
            skill-author → eval-curator → consistency-qa ─(FAIL)→ back to author
                                              │ PASS
                                              ▼
                            trigger-boundary-auditor   (only if a description changed)
                                              ▼
                                      release-manager  (only if release requested)
   Phase 3  report + collect feedback

Phase 0 — Context check

Determine the run mode before doing anything:

  • _workspace/brooks-harness/ exists + maintainer asks to redo part of a prior run → partial re-run: invoke only the affected stage(s), reusing prior notes.
  • _workspace/brooks-harness/ exists + a fresh request → new run: move the old folder to _workspace/brooks-harness_prev/, start clean.
  • No _workspace/brooks-harness/ → initial run: create it.

Run notes and the QA report live under _workspace/brooks-harness/. The real artifacts are the repo files themselves — agents edit skills/, evals/, manifests directly; _workspace/ only holds the run's notes and the PASS/FAIL verdict for audit.

Phase 1 — Classify the request

Pick the minimal set of stages. The QA stage is never skipped — every change is gated.

RequestauthorevalQAtrigger-auditrelease
Add a new skill✓ (via new-skill scaffold)✓✓✓—
Edit skill / guide content✓if codes changed✓if description changed—
Edit _shared/ framework✓if risk defs changed✓——
Codex / maintenance configuration——✓——
Eval suite only—✓✓——
Fix trigger descriptions✓—✓✓—
Release——✓—✓
Full: change + release✓as needed✓if applicable✓

Phase 2 — Run the pipeline

Spawn each selected stage as a subagent in order using Codex collaboration tools. Pass each agent (a) the task contract and (b) the previous stage's summary. Agents write their summaries to _workspace/brooks-harness/; read them between stages.

  1. skill-author — creates/edits the content. For a brand-new skill it invokes the new-skill scaffold. Returns the list of files touched + convention-relevant choices (new risk codes, new Step numbers, changed description trigger phrases).
  2. eval-curator — if skill-author reported new/changed risk codes or modes, adds the paired happy-path + false-positive scenarios and runs npm run evals.
  3. consistency-qa (gate — never skipped) — runs npm run validate + npm test + npm run evals, then the cross-document sync checks (manifests, all version-bearing text files, CHANGELOG, AGENTS/GEMINI book count, eval count). Writes a PASS/FAIL verdict. On FAIL: loop back to the agent named in the verdict (author or eval-curator), fix, then re-run QA. Repeat once; if it still fails, stop and report to the maintainer.
  4. trigger-boundary-auditor — run only if a description field changed. It read-only audits the six shipped skills' trigger surfaces for false-triggering and routing collisions. Surface its findings; if it flags a real collision, loop back to skill-author.
  5. release-manager — run only if a release was requested, and only after QA PASS. Cuts the release via the release skill.

Phase 3 — Report & feedback

Report: stages run, files changed, QA verdict, trigger-audit findings (if any), and the release URL (if any). Then offer the maintainer a feedback opening: "Anything to adjust in the result, the agent roles, or the pipeline order?" Record accepted changes in the AGENTS.md harness change-log table.

Conventions this harness enforces

  • Inherit the current Codex model and permissions; do not select a Claude model.
  • consistency-qa must be general-purpose (it runs npm scripts); the trigger-boundary-auditor is read-only.
  • No command wrappers are created — Codex discovers .agents/skills/.
  • Direct-to-main releases follow AGENTS.md. Commit, push, tag, or publish only when requested. Run the explicit validate/test/evals gate; Claude global rules and hooks do not execute in Codex.

Error handling

  • A stage that fails once is retried once with its error as input; a second failure stops the pipeline and reports to the maintainer (no silent skip).
  • QA FAIL never proceeds to release.
  • Conflicting data is reported with provenance, not deleted.
  • High-risk git ops (--no-verify, --force, history rewrites) require explicit maintainer authorization — release-manager stops and asks.

Test scenarios

Normal flow — "add a brooks-security skill": Phase 1 selects author+eval+QA+audit. skill-author runs new-skill brooks-security, creates SKILL.md (with a sibling-carving "Do NOT trigger for:" clause) + guide; eval-curator adds an S-code happy-path + a false-positive scenario; consistency-qa runs the gate → PASS; trigger-boundary-auditor confirms no collision with brooks-review/audit. Report lists files + PASS.

Error flow — QA FAIL on book-count drift: maintainer adds a thirteenth book but edits only source-coverage.md. consistency-qa's cross-doc check finds README still says "twelve" → FAIL, attributed to skill-author. Orchestrator loops back; skill-author updates README/AGENTS/GEMINI wording; QA re-runs → PASS. No release was requested, so the pipeline ends at Phase 3.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1,5292026年10月16日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1,5292026年10月16日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1,5292026年10月16日 更新

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).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1,5292026年10月16日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1,5292026年10月16日 更新

Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user wants to "fix everything", "sweep the codebase", "auto-fix all issues", "clean up the whole project", or asks for a single command that both diagnoses and remediates quality problems. Do NOT trigger for: read-only audits or health reports where the user only wants findings without code changes; single-dimension reviews (use the focused skill instead: brooks-review / brooks-audit / brooks-debt / brooks-test); server health checks, HTTP /health endpoints, Kubernetes probes, database health, or application uptime.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

hyhmrright/brooks-lint1,5292026年10月16日 更新

hyhmrright のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する