brooks-review
From the author
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.
Install
npx skills add hyhmrright/brooks-lint --skill brooks-review -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/brooks-review/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
Byte-identical to the scanned commit, with the repository’s licence and a SOURCE.txt.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
No warnings.
Why 88
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- brooks-audithyhmrright/brooks-lintArchitecture 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.Planning★ 1.5K
- brooks-testhyhmrright/brooks-lintTest 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.Testing★ 1.5K
- code-reviewanthropics/knowledge-work-pluginsReview code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.OfficialEngineering★ 31K
- codejeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplaceUse BEFORE generating, refactoring, reviewing, or debugging code. Trigger phrases include "write a function/script/class for X", "review this code/diff/PR", "refactor this", "debug this error", "is this implementation correct", "what's wrong with this code", "improve this code", "translate from X to Y", or any prompt with a code block the user wants you to act on. Also fires when planning architectural changes, picking algorithms or data structures, or evaluating dependency upgrades. Calls the code MCP tool to retrieve an engineering scaffold (failure pattern, procedure, correct-pattern example, verification step) before generating. Catches hallucinated APIs, lost edge cases, premature algorithm commitment, silent contract violations, refactors that change behavior masked by passing tests. Do NOT trigger for pure code reading with no action requested, simple syntax questions, file system operations, running existing tests, or confirming an existing pattern is fine.Engineering★ 2.9K
- brooks-healthhyhmrright/brooks-lintCombined 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).Testing★ 1.5K
- brooks-debthyhmrright/brooks-lintTech 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.DevOps★ 1.5K
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in