Myclaude-creator-engine code-health-check
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engine
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/myclaude-sh/myclaude-creator-engine "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/references/exemplars/code-health-check" ~/.claude/skills/myclaude-sh-myclaude-creator-engine-code-health-check && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
references/exemplars/code-health-check/SKILL.mdsource content
<!-- WHY: D1 (Activation Protocol) — Load check definitions and scoring before
running any analysis. Without this, checks are ad-hoc and inconsistent. -->
<!-- WHY: D5 (Question System) — If scope is ambiguous, ask before running a potentially expensive analysis on the wrong directory. -->
<!-- WHY: D4 (Quality Gate) — The report must meet these criteria before being presented to the user. Prevents low-quality analysis. -->
<!-- WHY: D7 (Pre-Execution Gate) — Verify preconditions before running the potentially expensive analysis. -->
<!-- WHY: D14 (Graceful Degradation) — Handle repos that are missing tests, deps, or other expected structures without crashing. -->
<!-- WHY: D2 (Anti-Pattern Guard) — Common mistakes when doing health checks. -->
<!-- WHY: D16 (Composability) — No hardcoded paths. Works in any project. -->
Code Health Check
Automated codebase health analysis with scored report and prioritized fixes.
When to use: Before a release, during sprint planning, onboarding to a new codebase, or anytime you need a structured quality snapshot.
When NOT to use: For runtime debugging (use a debugger). For security-specific audits (use a dedicated security tool). This is a structural health check, not a pentest.
Activation Protocol
Before running any checks:
- Load check definitions: Read
references/health-checks.md - Load scoring: Read
references/scoring-methodology.md - Detect project type: Glob for package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod
- Scope the check:
- If
provided, use as path scope$ARGUMENTS - If not, use current working directory
- If
- Verify it's a code repo: Check for
or source files.git/- If no code found: "This doesn't appear to be a codebase. Point me to a project directory."
<!-- WHY: D5 (Question System) — If scope is ambiguous, ask before running a potentially expensive analysis on the wrong directory. -->
Question System
| Input | Required | If Missing |
|---|---|---|
| Target path | Yes | Ask: "Which directory should I analyze?" |
| Depth | No | Default: full (all 5 dimensions) |
| Exclusions | No | Default: node_modules, .git, dist, build, vendor |
Core Instructions
Run 5 health dimensions in sequence. Each produces a 0-100 score.
Dimension 1: Dead Code (weight: 15%)
# Find unused exports grep -r "export " --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" | # extract export names # Cross-reference with imports across codebase # Unused export = dead code candidate
- Glob all source files
- Extract exported symbols (functions, classes, constants)
- Grep for imports/usage of each symbol
- Score: 100 - (dead_exports / total_exports × 100)
Dimension 2: Dependency Health (weight: 20%)
- Read package.json / requirements.txt / Cargo.toml
- Check last publish date of each dependency (if available via Bash)
- Flag: dependencies > 1 year old, deprecated packages, known CVEs
- Score: 100 - (stale_deps / total_deps × 100)
Dimension 3: Test Coverage (weight: 25%)
- Glob test files (.test., .spec., test_*, _test.)
- Glob source files
- Calculate ratio: test_files / source_files
- Check for test configuration (jest.config, pytest.ini, etc.)
- Score: (test_ratio × 50) + (has_config × 25) + (has_ci × 25)
Dimension 4: Security Surface (weight: 20%)
- Grep for hardcoded secrets (API keys, tokens, passwords)
- Check for eval(), exec(), dangerouslySetInnerHTML
- Check .env.example exists (if .env is gitignored)
- Check dependency audit (npm audit / pip-audit)
- Score: 100 - (findings × 10), min 0
Dimension 5: Complexity Hotspots (weight: 20%)
- Find files > 500 lines (candidates for splitting)
- Find functions > 50 lines (candidates for extraction)
- Find deeply nested code (> 4 levels of indentation)
- Score: 100 - (hotspots / total_files × 100)
<!-- WHY: D4 (Quality Gate) — The report must meet these criteria before being presented to the user. Prevents low-quality analysis. -->
Quality Gate
Before presenting the report, verify:
- All 5 dimensions produced a numeric score (0-100)
- At least 10 files were analyzed (otherwise scope is too narrow)
- Each finding has a specific file path (not generic advice)
- Remediation priorities are ordered by impact (not alphabetically)
<!-- WHY: D7 (Pre-Execution Gate) — Verify preconditions before running the potentially expensive analysis. -->
Pre-Execution Gate
Before running checks:
- Target directory exists and contains source files
- At least one recognized language detected
- Not running inside node_modules or .git
- Sufficient context to complete analysis
<!-- WHY: D14 (Graceful Degradation) — Handle repos that are missing tests, deps, or other expected structures without crashing. -->
Degradation Handling
| Missing Element | Behavior |
|---|---|
| No tests at all | Score dimension 3 at 0, note "No test infrastructure detected" |
| No package manager | Skip dimension 2, note "No dependency manifest found" |
| Binary/generated files | Exclude from analysis, note count |
| Monorepo | Ask which package to analyze, or run on root |
| Empty directories | Skip, don't count as dead code |
<!-- WHY: D2 (Anti-Pattern Guard) — Common mistakes when doing health checks. -->
Anti-Patterns
- Counting lines as quality — More lines ≠ worse. Measure complexity, not volume.
- Flagging all old dependencies — Stable deps (lodash, express) being "old" is fine.
- Test file ratio as coverage — File existence ≠ meaningful test coverage.
- Generic advice — "You should write more tests" is useless. Specify WHICH files need tests.
- Ignoring context — A prototype has different health standards than production code.
- Running on vendor code — Always exclude node_modules, vendor, generated code.
- One-time snapshot thinking — Health checks should be re-run periodically, not once.
<!-- WHY: D16 (Composability) — No hardcoded paths. Works in any project. -->
Output Format
CODE HEALTH REPORT — {project_name} Generated: {date} | Scope: {path} | Files: {N} OVERALL HEALTH: {score}/100 {grade} Dead Code {score}/100 ████████░░ {dead_count} unused exports Dependencies {score}/100 ██████████ {stale_count} stale, {vuln_count} vulnerable Test Coverage {score}/100 ██████░░░░ {test_ratio}% file coverage Security Surface {score}/100 █████████░ {finding_count} findings Complexity {score}/100 ████████░░ {hotspot_count} hotspots TOP PRIORITIES (fix these first): 1. {file:line} — {issue} — {impact} 2. {file:line} — {issue} — {impact} 3. {file:line} — {issue} — {impact} DETAILED FINDINGS: {N} total across 5 dimensions [See below for per-dimension breakdown]
Grade scale: A (90+), B (75-89), C (60-74), D (40-59), F (<40)