跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

plankton-code-quality

协助在Claude Code中配置Plankton,在每次编辑文件后自动格式化并检查代码。还涵盖剩余违规的自动修复、复查,以及防止检查规则被放宽的保护措施。

原文查看原文说明

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.

AI 评分90分/ 100查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 每次编辑后自动格式化并检查代码
  • 配置剩余检查违规的自动修复
  • 防止检查规则被放宽
  • 为多种语言引入质量检查

中文介绍

功能

plankton-code-quality协助配置Plankton,在Claude Code每次编辑文件后自动格式化并运行lint,即查找代码问题的静态检查。剩余违规交给独立的Claude进程,按复杂程度分配给Haiku、Sonnet或Opus。修复后再次检查,未解决的问题返回原智能体。还介绍防止检查配置被修改的机制,以及在CI中运行相同检查的方法。

适用场景

适合希望在编辑后立即检查格式和质量,而不只是在提交时检查的项目。也适用于同时使用Python、TypeScript、Shell等多种语言,或需要防止通过放宽检查规则来代替修复代码的情况。

使用示例

  • “为这个项目配置Plankton的编辑时钩子。”
  • “启用剩余lint违规的自动修复和复查。”

注意事项

Plankton须手动安装,使用前须审查代码。需要Claude Code及各目标语言的格式化和检查工具。标准钩子将Python包管理工具限制为uv,将JavaScript包管理工具限制为bun。与ECC配合使用时,须注意Prettier与biome的冲突。TypeScript/JS复杂度检查需要oxlint 1.37.0或更高版本,并根据实测值设置上限。

本介绍由 AI(OpenAI Codex)根据公开的 SKILL.md 撰写。准确的规格请查看下方原文。

客观评估

AI 仅根据 SKILL.md 的内容,从 4 个方面进行了评估。星标数和热度不计入评估。

指令清晰度能否看出何时使用、做什么
A良好资料明确说明每次编辑后格式化和检查,并由独立Claude进程修复剩余违规。
步骤具体性步骤、输入输出和示例是否具体
A良好资料提供三个处理阶段、违规JSON字段、各模型超时限制及配置示例。
安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
B部分不足资料说明代码预审和配置保护,但未解释claude -p自动修改代码的权限。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
A良好资料说明手动安装、依赖安装命令、各语言要求及向项目复制配置的步骤。

总分按每项 A=25 分、B=15 分、C=5 分相加。 由 AI(OpenAI Codex)于 2026年10月19日 评估。仅供参考,安装前请同时查看原文。

如果您认为评估有误,请申请复核

请写明哪一项有误以及原因。无需登录。我们会对照 SKILL.md 重新评估,并在此处更新结果。

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

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md12.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

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