Orchestrate multi-stage maintenance pipeline for linting plugin development
A maintenance-orchestrator skill for the brooks-lint repo - a gated author-eval-QA-audit-release subagent pipeline.
Why it matters
Automate the end-to-end maintenance workflow for the brooks-lint repository itself by running a sequential five-stage pipeline-authoring skills, curating eval suites, enforcing quality gates, auditing trigger boundaries, and cutting releases-with automatic QA loop-back on failures.
Outcomes
What it gets done
Author or edit skill content and framework files using dedicated subagents with scaffolding support
Curate and run evaluation scenarios when risk codes or modes change in skill definitions
Gate all changes through consistency QA that validates manifests, tests, evals, and cross-document sync
Audit trigger descriptions for false-positive collisions across shipped skills when descriptions change
Install
Add it to your toolbox
Run in your project directory:
curl -fsSL https://spark.entire.vc/get/ag-brooks-harness | bash Overview
brooks-lint - Maintenance Harness (Orchestrator)
This skill orchestrates a gated subagent pipeline for maintaining the brooks-lint repo: authoring skill changes, updating evals, running a mandatory consistency QA gate, auditing trigger boundaries, and cutting releases. Use it only for maintaining the brooks-lint plugin's own repository - adding/editing skills, syncing docs, or releasing. Not applicable to other projects.
What it does
This skill orchestrates maintenance work on the brooks-lint repo itself, running a sequential subagent pipeline where each stage is a dedicated agent spawned with the model always set to opus. Phase 0 determines run mode - a partial re-run reusing prior notes if resuming part of an earlier run, a new run that archives the old workspace, or an initial run - keeping run notes and QA verdicts in a workspace folder while the real artifacts are the repo files themselves. Phase 1 classifies the request against a table to pick the minimal necessary stage set, whether that's adding a skill, editing content, editing the shared framework, refreshing the eval suite only, fixing trigger descriptions, cutting a release, or a full change plus release - the QA stage is never skipped regardless of which other stages run. Phase 2 runs the selected stages in order: skill-author creates or edits content, invoking a new-skill scaffold for brand-new skills; eval-curator adds paired happy-path and false-positive eval scenarios if risk codes or modes changed, then runs the eval suite; consistency-qa is a mandatory gate running validation, tests, and evals plus cross-document sync checks across manifests, the README badge, the changelog, and book or eval counts, producing a PASS or FAIL verdict that loops back to the author or eval-curator on failure, retried once before stopping and reporting to the maintainer; trigger-boundary-auditor runs only if a description field changed, read-only auditing all shipped skills' trigger surfaces for false-triggering or routing collisions and looping back on a real collision; release-manager runs only if a release was requested and only after QA passes, cutting the release through a companion release skill. Phase 3 reports the stages run, files changed, QA verdict, audit findings, and release URL, then invites maintainer feedback logged to a harness change-log table.
Enforced conventions include every Agent call using opus, consistency-qa running as a general-purpose agent since it executes npm scripts while the trigger auditor stays read-only, no slash commands being created since short forms auto-install via a session-start hook, and changes pushing directly to main without a pull request per repo convention, though a simplify-review-commit gate still applies to non-documentation edits. Error handling retries a failed stage once with its error as input, stops on a second failure rather than silently skipping it, never lets a QA failure proceed to release, and requires explicit maintainer authorization for high-risk git operations like force pushes or history rewrites.
When to use - and when NOT to
Use it only for maintaining the brooks-lint plugin's own repository - adding or editing skills, refreshing evals, keeping manifests, README, and changelog in sync, auditing trigger boundaries, or cutting a release. It is not applicable outside this specific repo's maintenance workflow.
Inputs and outputs
Given a maintenance request, it produces a classified stage plan, edited skill, eval, and manifest files, a QA PASS or FAIL verdict with cross-document sync confirmation, optional trigger-audit findings, and an optional release URL.
Integrations
The Agent tool spawning dedicated subagents - skill-author, eval-curator, consistency-qa, trigger-boundary-auditor, and release-manager - defined in the repo's agent configuration, npm scripts for the QA gate, and a companion release skill for cutting releases.
Who it's for
Maintainers of the brooks-lint plugin who need a consistent, gated pipeline for adding or editing skills, keeping documentation and manifests in sync, and safely cutting releases without manual cross-checking.
Source README
brooks-lint - Maintenance Harness (Orchestrator)
When to Use
Use this skill when you need maintenance 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 + README + CHANGELOG + AGENTS/GEMINI in sync, audit trigger...
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 alwaysmodel: "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, README badge,
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 thereleaseskill.
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.
Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches its upstream source and local project context.
- Verify commands, generated code, dependencies, credentials, and external service behavior before applying changes.
- Do not treat examples as a substitute for environment-specific tests, security review, or user approval for destructive or costly actions.
FAQ
Common questions
Discussion
Questions & comments · 0
Sign In Sign in to leave a comment.