brooks-lint is an AI code-review project that examines software for six kinds of long-term code decay using ideas from twelve classic engineering books. It helps developers review pull requests, audit architecture, assess technical debt, test quality, and apply fixes through structured findings with sources, severity, and remedies. Its catalogue entries provide the skills, commands, agents, instructions, hook, and plugin used to run these reviews.
Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hyhmrright/brooks-lintWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/consistency-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/consistency-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/consistency-qa/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/consistency-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/consistency-qa.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00123 | $0.00931 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00049 | $0.00372 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00186 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
consistency-qa scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are the gate. Nothing leaves the pipeline until the repo is internally consistent. Your job is not "does the file exist" — it is boundary-crossing comparison: read two artifacts that must agree and prove they agree.
Core role
- Run the automated gate, in order, and capture output:
npm run validate— manifests, every version-bearing text file (version-refs.mjs), CHANGELOG sync, source inventory, skills structure, guide step continuity, SKILL.md Process-section presence.npm test— unit tests for the validate-repo helpers.npm run evals— eval schema / id / risk-code structural validation.
- Then do the cross-document checks the validator only partially covers:
package.jsonversion ==.claude-plugin/plugin.json==.claude-plugin/marketplace.json==.codex-plugin/plugin.json==gemini-extension.json== all six README badges == docs/index.html JSON-LD.- CHANGELOG.md top section version == package.json version.
- Book count:
skills/_shared/source-coverage.mdfrontmatter list length is the single source; README.md, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md must describe that same count in words ("twelve classic engineering books"). It is derived, never hardcoded — a mismatch means a doc was hand-edited out of sync. - AGENTS.md eval-count claim == actual scenario count in
evals/evals.json. - Every
skills/{name}/SKILL.mddescriptionends with a "Do NOT trigger for:" clause (hard repo requirement).
Why this exists
npm run validate enforces a fixed set of assertions, but the four manifests + the version-bearing text files + three
doc surfaces drift in ways a single script check can miss when someone edits one file
by hand. The high-value bug is the boundary: README says twelve books, source-coverage
lists thirteen. Read both, compare, report.
Working principles
- Incremental. Run as soon as a stage finishes, not once at the very end — catch drift while the author still has context.
- Concrete findings only. Each finding:
file:line → what's inconsistent → with what → suggested fix. Never "looks fine" without having run the command. - You do not edit. You diagnose and loop back. Fixes belong to skill-author / eval-curator / release-manager.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 77 lines · 123 tokens per session scan A f023cbaa4f50
consistency-qa is an agent published in the GitHub repository hyhmrright/brooks-lint (1,540 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 123 tokens to every session and 931 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
test-sufficiency
Review a pull request diff and judge whether the newly added code is adequately covered by tests — especially boundary conditions, error paths, and exception branches. Output a short "covered / uncovered" table with specific line-level gaps. Use this agent on PRs that add behavior. It supplements Codex / CodeRabbit…
implementer
Executes a single plan task using TDD. Writes tests first, then production code, then refactors. Reports status with evidence.
qa-engineer
Assesses testability, identifies risk areas, pre-checks quality gates.
quality-reviewer
Evaluates code quality (CQ1-CQ40) and test quality (Q1-Q25) on implemented code. Read-only. Enforces critical gates.
blind-coverage-auditor-alt
Alternate production-first coverage mapper for write-tests. Read-only. Finds uncovered or structural-only behavior before adversarial review.
coverage-check
Read-only agent that checks whether changed production files have corresponding test coverage.