Brooks Lint

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/brooks-lint from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Brooks Lint

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: The 12 Books, How It Works, Review Categories, Limitations.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Use when you want architectural feedback beyond what linters provide
• Use before major refactors to identify structural debt
• Use when reviewing code that "works but feels wrong"
• Use when onboarding to a codebase to quickly map risk areas
• Use for design reviews before starting a new module or service
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: AI code reviewer grounded in classic software engineering books for catching design smells, coupling issues, and architectural risks.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. bash # Install via Claude Code plugin marketplace # Search: "brooks-lint" in Claude Code > Extensions # Or install via NPX (Antigravity) npx antigravity-awesome-skills --claude # Then invoke: @brooks-lint
2. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
3. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
4. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
5. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
6. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
7. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Installation

# Install via Claude Code plugin marketplace
# Search: "brooks-lint" in Claude Code > Extensions

# Or install via NPX (Antigravity)
npx antigravity-awesome-skills --claude
# Then invoke: @brooks-lint

Imported: Overview

Brooks Lint is a Claude Code skill that reviews your code through the lens of 12 classic software engineering books. Instead of checking style rules, it asks: "What would the authors of The Pragmatic Programmer, Clean Code, and Designing Data-Intensive Applications say about this code?"

It synthesizes the principles from landmark engineering books into actionable, structured feedback — catching design smells, tight coupling, missing abstractions, and architectural risks that linters and AI tools typically miss.

Named after Fred Brooks, author of The Mythical Man-Month — because the hardest bugs are conceptual, not syntactic.

Imported: The 12 Books

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @brooks-lint to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @brooks-lint against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @brooks-lint for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @brooks-lint using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Imported Usage Notes

Imported: Examples

Example 1: Review a Service Class

@brooks-lint review src/services/PaymentService.ts

Brooks Lint output:

[Pragmatic Programmer] DRY violation: payment validation logic duplicated in 3 places
[Clean Code] Method processPayment() does 4 things — violates Single Responsibility
[Release It!] No timeout on external payment gateway call — risk of cascade failure
[DDIA] No idempotency key — retry on network error will double-charge
[APOSD] PaymentService knows too much about UserRepository — high coupling

Example 2: Full Codebase Architecture Review

@brooks-lint analyze the overall architecture of this codebase

Example 3: Pre-Refactor Review

@brooks-lint what are the biggest design smells in this module before I refactor it?

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Run @brooks-lint after writing new service layers or data pipelines
• Combine with @logic-lens for full coverage: logic bugs + design smells
• Use @brooks-lint analyze architecture weekly on growing codebases
• Focus on CRITICAL and HIGH findings first — LOW findings are style suggestions
• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Best Practices

• Run @brooks-lint after writing new service layers or data pipelines
• Combine with @logic-lens for full coverage: logic bugs + design smells
• Use @brooks-lint analyze architecture weekly on growing codebases
• Focus on CRITICAL and HIGH findings first — LOW findings are style suggestions

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/brooks-lint, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @20-andruia-niche-intelligence - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @advogado-criminal - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @advogado-especialista - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @agent-memory-systems - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Additional Resources

• GitHub Repository
• Dev.to Article: I Synthesized 12 Classic Engineering Books into an AI Code Reviewer
• Related skill: logic-lens

Imported: How It Works

Brooks Lint applies each book's core principles as a review lens:

1. Smell detection: Flags violations of DRY, SRP, Law of Demeter, etc.
2. Coupling analysis: Identifies tight dependencies and missing abstraction layers
3. Naming critique: Applies Clean Code naming rules to variables, methods, classes
4. Architecture review: Checks for DDIA-style data consistency and fault tolerance gaps
5. Stability patterns: Flags missing timeouts, retries, and circuit breakers (Release It!)
6. Complexity scoring: Applies APOSD complexity metrics to identify over-engineered sections

Imported: Review Categories

Imported: Limitations

Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above (design review and architectural analysis). Brooks Lint applies AI-powered analysis grounded in established engineering principles. It should complement — not replace — human design review for production-critical decisions. Results reflect the principles of the 12 source books and may not apply to all architectural styles or domains.