brooks-lint — Maintenance Harness (Orchestrator)
SkillAI & modelsMaintenance 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 that don't ask to change it; or maintenance of a different plugin.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the brooks-lint — Maintenance Harness (Orchestrator) skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by hyhmrright/brooks-lint in .claude/skills/brooks-harness/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
This skill orchestrates work on the brooks-lint repo itself. It runs a sequential
subagent pipeline: each stage is a dedicated agent defined in .claude/agents/. Spawn
each with the Agent tool, subagent_type set to the agent name, and always
model: "opus". Stages depend on each other in order, so this is a pipeline, not a
parallel team.
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.
| Request | author | eval | QA | trigger-audit | release |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Add a new skill | ✓ (via new-skill scaffold) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| Edit skill / guide content | ✓ | if codes changed | ✓ | if description changed | — |
Edit _shared/ framework | ✓ | if risk defs changed | ✓ | — | — |
| Eval suite only | — | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
| Fix trigger descriptions | ✓ | — | ✓ | ✓ | — |
| Release | — | — | ✓ | — | ✓ |
| Full: change + release | ✓ | as needed | ✓ | if applicable | ✓ |
Phase 2 — Run the pipeline
Spawn each selected stage as a subagent in order. Pass each agent (a) the task
contract and (b) the previous stage's summary. Agents write their summaries to
_workspace/brooks-harness/; read them between stages.
- skill-author — creates/edits the content. For a brand-new skill it invokes the
new-skillscaffold. Returns the list of files touched + convention-relevant choices (new risk codes, new Step numbers, changeddescriptiontrigger phrases). - eval-curator — if
skill-authorreported new/changed risk codes or modes, adds the paired happy-path + false-positive scenarios and runsnpm run evals. - consistency-qa (gate — never skipped) — runs
npm run validate+npm test+npm run evals, then the cross-document sync checks (manifests, all version-bearing text files, CHANGELOG, AGENTS/GEMINI book count, eval count). Writes a PASS/FAIL verdict. On FAIL: loop back to the agent named in the verdict (author or eval-curator), fix, then re-run QA. Repeat once; if it still fails, stop and report to the maintainer. - trigger-boundary-auditor — run only if a
descriptionfield changed. It read-only audits the six shipped skills' trigger surfaces for false-triggering and routing collisions. Surface its findings; if it flags a real collision, loop back to skill-author. - release-manager — run only if a release was requested, and only after QA
PASS. Cuts the release via the
releaseskill.
Phase 3 — Report & feedback
Report: stages run, files changed, QA verdict, trigger-audit findings (if any), and the release URL (if any). Then offer the maintainer a feedback opening: "Anything to adjust in the result, the agent roles, or the pipeline order?" Record accepted changes in the CLAUDE.md harness change-log table.
Conventions this harness enforces
- All
Agentcalls usemodel: "opus"— harness quality tracks agent reasoning. - consistency-qa must be
general-purpose(it runs npm scripts); the trigger-boundary-auditor is read-only. - No slash commands are created — short forms are auto-installed by the session-start hook.
- Direct-to-main: changes push to
mainwithout a PR (per repo CLAUDE.md); the global simplify→review→commit gate still applies to non-doc edits, but skill/guide content is markdown and follows the validate gate instead.
Error handling
- A stage that fails once is retried once with its error as input; a second failure stops the pipeline and reports to the maintainer (no silent skip).
- QA FAIL never proceeds to release.
- Conflicting data is reported with provenance, not deleted.
- High-risk git ops (
--no-verify,--force, history rewrites) require explicit maintainer authorization — release-manager stops and asks.
Test scenarios
Normal flow — "add a brooks-security skill": Phase 1 selects author+eval+QA+audit.
skill-author runs new-skill brooks-security, creates SKILL.md (with a sibling-carving
"Do NOT trigger for:" clause) + guide; eval-curator adds an S-code happy-path + a
false-positive scenario; consistency-qa runs the gate → PASS; trigger-boundary-auditor
confirms no collision with brooks-review/audit. Report lists files + PASS.
Error flow — QA FAIL on book-count drift: maintainer adds a thirteenth book but
edits only source-coverage.md. consistency-qa's cross-doc check finds README still
says "twelve" → FAIL, attributed to skill-author. Orchestrator loops back; skill-author
updates README/AGENTS/GEMINI wording; QA re-runs → PASS. No release was requested, so
the pipeline ends at Phase 3.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 1k
- Forks
- 66
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
brooks-harness- Source
- github.com/hyhmrright/brooks-lint