hyhmrright

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 .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

release

Cut a brooks-lint release: set the version in package.json, propagate it across all four plugin manifests and every version-bearing text file (README badges, docs site metadata), write the CHANGELOG entry, validate, then commit, push, tag, and publish the GitHub release. Triggers when the maintainer asks to "release", "cut a release", "ship a new version", or "bump and publish" brooks-lint. Do NOT trigger for: propagating an already-decided version without releasing (use `npm run bump` directly), CHANGELOG edits alone, or questions about the release process that don't ask to perform it.

brooks-audit

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.

brooks-debt

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.

brooks-health

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).

brooks-review

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.

brooks-sweep

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.

brooks-test

Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow execution, poor readability. Triggers when: user asks about test quality, shares test files for review, or expresses frustration: "tests keep breaking whenever I change anything", "our tests take forever", "tests pass but bugs still reach production", or "we have too many mocks". Do NOT trigger for: writing new tests from scratch (use the regular test-writing workflow) or testing framework/syntax questions — this skill reviews an existing suite for structural quality problems, not individual test authoring.