consistency-qa
Subagent "consistency-qa" from hyhmrright/brooks-lint: The brooks-lint verification gate.
Template by hyhmrright
Install
Works with Claude Code. Read the repository before you give any tool access to your data.
curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hyhmrright/brooks-lint/main/.claude/agents/consistency-qa.md -o consistency-qa.md
Read it and adapt it to your project before use.
Get the weekly diff
The weekly diff: one email a week with new agent tools, notable updates and grade changes, plus security alerts for tools you follow. Double opt-in, one-click unsubscribe.
About
Use cases: testing, documentation
Reviews
Write a reviewNo reviews yet. Installed it? Reviews come from verified installers only. How reviews work
What's in it
A Claude Code subagent: a Markdown file with frontmatter that defines a specialised helper agent and the tools it may use.
- For
- Claude Code
- Length
- 77 lines
- File
.claude/agents/consistency-qa.md- name
- consistency-qa
- model
- opus
- tools
- Read, Grep, Glob, Bash
- description
- The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs `npm run validate`, `npm test`, and `npm run evals`, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff — the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the derived book count — for drift. Reports concrete, file-and-line findings; loops the pipeline back to the author on any failure. Pipeline stage 3 (QA) of the brooks-harness orchestrator. general-purpose so it can run scri
Sections
- Core role
- Why this exists
- Working principles
- Input / output protocol
- Error handling
- Collaboration
- Re-invocation
First lines (shown under the repo's MIT license)
---
name: consistency-qa
description: >
The brooks-lint verification gate. Runs `npm run validate`, `npm test`, and
`npm run evals`, then cross-checks the documents the validator can't fully diff —
the four plugin manifests, all six README badges, the docs landing-page JSON-LD, CHANGELOG, AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md, and the
derived book count — for drift. Reports concrete, file-and-line findings; loops the
pipeline back to the author on any failure. Pipeline stage 3 (QA) of the
brooks-harness orchestrator. general-purpose so it can run scripts.
model: opus
tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash
---
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
1. 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.
2. Then do the **cross-document checks** the validator only partially covers:
- `package.json` version == `.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.md` frontmatter 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.md` `description` ends 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.
## Input / output protocol
- **Input:** the author's and eval-curator's change summaries (what to expect changed).
- **Output:** a PASS/FAIL verdict plus the finding list. On FAIL, name the exact stage
(which command, which cross-doc check) so the orchestrator routes the loop-back to
the right agent. Write the verdict to `_workspace/brooks-harness/qa-report.md`.
## Error handling
A failing command is a finding, not a crash — capture stdout/stderr verbatim and
attribute it. If a check is impossible (file missing), report that as a finding too.
## Collaboration
- Verifies **skill-author** and **eval-curator** output; gates **release-manager**
(a release must not proceed on a FAIL).
- Runs alongside **trigger-boundary-auditor** when a `description` changed — they
check different surfaces (you: structural/sync; it: semantic routing collisions).
## Re-invocation
On a loop-back after a fix, re-run the full gate (not just the previously failing
check) — a fix in one file can break another's sync.Signals
- Stars
- 1,542
- Forks
- 72
- Open issues
- 0
- Last commit (this folder)
- Aug 3, 2026 (2 months ago)
- Last release
- Oct 24, 2026 (6 days ago)
From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).
Details
- License
- MIT
- Repository
- github.com/hyhmrright/brooks-lint
- First seen
- Oct 24, 2026
- Last checked
- Oct 24, 2026
- Source
- GitHubgithub-graphql
More from hyhmrright
- 0.826score
brooks-health
hyhmrright
Combined codebase health dashboard that scores a project across all four quality dimensions — PR quality, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — in a…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1.5KClaude Code +9 - 0.826score
brooks-debt
hyhmrright
Tech debt assessment that identifies, classifies, and prioritizes maintainability problems — helping teams build a refactoring roadmap — drawing on twelve…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1.5KClaude Code +9 - 0.826score
brooks-sweep
hyhmrright
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1.5KClaude Code +9 - 0.826score
brooks-test
hyhmrright
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1.5KClaude Code +9 - 0.826score
brooks-review
hyhmrright
PR code review that surfaces decay risks, design smells, and maintainability issues with concrete Symptom → Source → Consequence → Remedy findings, drawing on…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1.5KClaude Code +9 - 0.826score
brooks-audit
hyhmrright
Architecture audit that maps module dependencies, checks layering integrity, and flags structural decay across a codebase, drawing on twelve classic…
SkillAFreshness: A★ 1.5KClaude Code +9
Cite this page
consistency-qa. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/templates/hyhmrright-brooks-lint-consistency-qa (last updated 2026-10-24)