跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

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.

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 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

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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)

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC28.4万2026年10月16日 更新

agent-architecture-audit

免费有简介AI 评分 80分

从指令、记忆、工具执行和界面显示等十二个层面排查人工智能代理故障,依据代码和日志梳理原因,按严重程度列出问题并提出修复方案。

  • 排查仅在应用内出现的故障
  • 调查旧对话混入回答的原因
  • 核对工具漏执行或虚报执行
affaan-m/ECC28.4万2026年10月16日 更新

agent-eval

免费有简介AI 评分 80分

用实际开发任务比较多个编程智能体,记录成功率、可获取的API费用、耗时和重复运行的稳定性,为工具选型及更新后的性能评估提供数据。

  • 用实际开发任务比较智能体
  • 采用新工具或模型前进行评估
  • 检查智能体更新后的性能
affaan-m/ECC28.4万2026年10月16日 更新

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • 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/ECC28.4万2026年10月16日 更新

agent-introspection-debugging

免费有简介AI 评分 100分

根据错误信息和执行环境,分析AI代理反复失败或重复操作的原因。通过小范围、可撤销的恢复操作检验假设,并将结果与依据整理成可供交接的报告。

  • 诊断代理连续失败
  • 调查重复调用工具的循环
  • 检查上下文积累导致的输出退化
affaan-m/ECC28.4万2026年10月5日 更新

agent-introspection-debugging

免费有简介AI 评分 100分

在AI代理反复失败或重复操作时,记录错误与环境前提、排查原因,采取影响有限的恢复操作,并汇总结果和证据,为有依据的重试与交接提供支持。

  • 排查重复调用工具的原因
  • 调查对话膨胀导致的质量下降
  • 核对文件路径与环境差异
affaan-m/ECC28.4万2026年10月16日 更新

查看 affaan-m 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题