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.
npx skills add hyhmrright/brooks-lint --skill brooks-harnessgit 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/skills/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/brooks-harness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/brooks-harness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/brooks-harness/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/skills/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/brooks-harness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/brooks-harness.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Rogue Agent · line 68 Skill modifies its own code, configuration, or behavior at runtime. Self-modification enables an agent to escalate privileges, disable safety constraints, or install persistent backdoors.Fix: Prevent the skill from modifying its own code, SKILL.md, or configuration files. Treat skill files as read-only at runtime.
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 | $0.00271 | $0.01842 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00108 | $0.00737 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00054 | $0.00368 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00027 | $0.00184 |
Grade A, and why
brooks-harness 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 12d 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 — 140 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
brooks-lint — Maintenance Harness (Orchestrator)
This skill orchestrates work on the brooks-lint repo itself. It runs a sequential
subagent pipeline: each stage is a dedicated agent defined in .codex/agents/.
Use the available Codex collaboration tools with the matching agent role; inherit
the parent model and permissions. If custom roles are not loaded, pass the role's
developer_instructions from its TOML file to a standard subagent. Stages run
sequentially. Every editing agent must preserve other contributors' changes and
own only the files assigned by the orchestrator.
Pipeline
[orchestrator]
Phase 0 context check
Phase 1 classify request → select stages
Phase 2 run selected stages in order, with a QA loop-back:
skill-author → eval-curator → consistency-qa ─(FAIL)→ back to author
│ PASS
▼
trigger-boundary-auditor (only if a description changed)
▼
release-manager (only if release requested)
Phase 3 report + collect feedback
Phase 0 — Context check
Determine the run mode before doing anything:
_workspace/brooks-harness/exists + maintainer asks to redo part of a prior run → partial re-run: invoke only the affected stage(s), reusing prior notes._workspace/brooks-harness/exists + a fresh request → new run: move the old folder to_workspace/brooks-harness_prev/, start clean.- No
_workspace/brooks-harness/→ initial run: create it.
Run notes and the QA report live under _workspace/brooks-harness/. The real
artifacts are the repo files themselves — agents edit skills/, evals/, manifests
directly; _workspace/ only holds the run's notes and the PASS/FAIL verdict for audit.
Phase 1 — Classify the request
Pick the minimal set of stages. The QA stage is never skipped — every change is gated.
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.
- 12d ago Changed · +1 lines 778a856191fa
- 2mo ago First seen · 139 lines · 271 tokens per session scan A ef9183cedb69
brooks-harness is a skill published in the GitHub repository hyhmrright/brooks-lint (1,550 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 271 tokens to every session and 1,842 once invoked, about $0.0011 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 skills, from other repositories
recipe-front-review
Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.
review
Perform a structured code review by composing validation checklists from relevant atoms based on what code changed. Loads atoms conditionally -- clean-code always, architecture/DDD/security/tests only when the delta touches their domain. Produces a severity-ordered report with specific locations and fixes. Use when…
procoder
Work like a senior developer in a repository governed by procoder: run the commit gate before calling anything done, format and lint through the binary, and drive the spec, plan, todo, backlog, and sprint chain in .procoder/. Use this skill when the repository contains a .procoder/ directory or an AGENTS.md naming…
code-review
The depth half of a review - the dimensions a diff is read against (correctness, boundaries, concurrency, failure paths, secrets, data access, structure, test quality) and the rule that a finding is refuted before it is reported. The verdict stays with the reviewer agent. Use when reviewing a diff or a pull request…
deslop
The optimization pass, defined - delete before you add, one smell class per pass, behaviour pinned by a test that ran BEFORE the edit. Lints a SKILL.md and prose by the same instinct. Use for the per-story optimization pass or when code has grown noisy without growing capable.
run-iteration-eval
Run the Logic-Lens content-eval pipeline for one iteration and produce a scored summary.json — use to measure a skill change. Wraps scripts/run-content-evals.sh (runner, costs tokens) and scripts/grade-iteration.py (grader, free, re-runnable). ALWAYS sync the plugin cache first. Use when the user wants to "run the…