detection-sweep
Skill9 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when asked to check the whole project and report problems - "check the whole project", "detect the problems", "run a sweep", "vérifie tout le projet", "détecte les problèmes", "lance un sweep", periodic health check of a codebase, before a release audit.
In this repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adversarial-feature-challengeSkill
- api-contract-versioningSkill
- bug-ticket-root-causeSkill
- bug-triage-structuredSkill
- ci-pipeline-orchestrationSkill
- commit-readiness-reviewSkill
- comprehensive-test-strategySkill
- database-schema-evolutionSkill
- ddd-backend-implementationSkill
- design-system-component-lifecycleSkill
- detection-sweepSkill
- domain-glossarySkill
- domain-modeling-designSkill
- frontend-fullstack-implementationSkill
- frontend-spec-call-site-auditSkill
- merge-request-reviewSkill
- performance-profilingSkill
- recording-decisionsSkill
- recurring-bug-root-causeSkill
- refactoring-shared-component-apiSkill
- validating-features-end-to-endSkill
- visual-regression-checkSkill
- writing-robust-testsSkill
- adversarial-feature-challengeSkill
- api-contract-versioningSkill
- audit-architectureSkill
- audit-ci-cdSkill
- audit-complianceSkill
- audit-industrialisationSkill
- audit-observabilitySkill
- audit-performance-frontendSkill
- audit-qualitySkill
- audit-reportSkill
- audit-securitySkill
- audit-testingSkill
- bug-ticket-root-causeSkill
- bug-triage-structuredSkill
- ci-pipeline-orchestrationSkill
- commit-readiness-reviewSkill
- comprehensive-test-strategySkill
- daily-workflow-optimizationSkill
- database-schema-evolutionSkill
- ddd-backend-implementationSkill
- design-system-component-lifecycleSkill
- domain-glossarySkill
- domain-modeling-designSkill
- frontend-fullstack-implementationSkill
- frontend-spec-call-site-auditSkill
- merge-request-reviewSkill
- performance-profilingSkill
- production-incident-diagnosticSkill
- qa-session-intakeSkill
- recording-decisionsSkill
- recurring-bug-root-causeSkill
- refactoring-shared-component-apiSkill
- validating-features-end-to-endSkill
- visual-regression-checkSkill
- writing-robust-testsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
This skill: when: sweeping the whole project and reporting problems (periodic health check, pre-release audit) - detection without fixing
- Very specific: line 17
writing-robust-tests: instead if: covering a targeted file, not auditing the whole - Very specific: line 18
bug-ticket-root-cause: instead if: a single observed bug to document in depth - Very specific: line 39
Not a report paragraph, not a "recommended action": a ticket created (GitLab/GitHub/Jira depending on the repo - use the project's CLI if …
- Very specific: line 45
Anti-duplicate: before creating, extract a signature (file + message) and search the open tickets under the sweep label - if found, comment …
- Very specific: line 83
Test procedure: scripts/sweep.test.ts - deterministic behavioral test of the script (positive + negative fixture).
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Detection Sweep - detect, ticket, fix nothing
If the current repo has a specific sweep skill, it wins - it knows the project's blocks and tracker.
This skill vs. others
- This skill when: sweeping the whole project and reporting problems (periodic health check, pre-release audit) - detection without fixing
writing-robust-testsinstead if: covering a targeted file, not auditing the wholebug-ticket-root-causeinstead if: a single observed bug to document in depth
Principle
Detection only. A sweep that fixes along the way is no longer a sweep: its report becomes unverifiable and the unreviewed fixes ship without a ticket. The output = tickets in the tracker + a report, zero code changes.
1. Build the list of blocks (adapt to the project)
Detect the available checks: package.json scripts, Makefile, Cargo.toml, CI config (.gitlab-ci.yml, .github/workflows/). Order: fastest to slowest:
- Compilation / typecheck (per stack)
- Lint (per stack)
- Unit tests (per stack)
- Integration tests / API contracts
- E2E
- Dependency security audit (
npm audit,cargo audit,pip-audit…)
Run ALL the blocks, even after failures - a partial sweep gives a false picture of health. Parallelize independent blocks.
2. One failure = one ticket in the tracker
Not a report paragraph, not a "recommended action": a ticket created (GitLab/GitHub/Jira depending on the repo - use the project's CLI if it has one, otherwise glab/gh/API).
Granularity: 1 ticket per distinct cause (12 mypy errors of the same kind = 1 ticket; 2 tests failing for 2 reasons = 2 tickets).
Mandatory content: reproduction command · error output · files involved · block and sweep date · labels (bug, needs-triage, sweep).
Anti-duplicate: before creating, extract a signature (file + message) and search the open tickets under the sweep label - if found, comment instead of duplicating.
Creation cap (--cap, default 5): create only the N highest-priority tickets per pass, so as not to drown feature work under debt. Sort by severity (blocking > MUST > SHOULD), create up to the cap, and explicitly list the capped causes ("8 detected, 5 created, 3 capped") for the next pass - a cap does not erase the rest, it visibly defers it.
3. Final report
Table block | status | tickets created, then the list of tickets with numbers, total and duration. If a block was skipped (unavailable locally, too long), say so explicitly - an un-run block is not a green block.
Forbidden rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
| "It's an obvious one-line fix" | That's exactly how a sweep drifts. Ticket it. The fix will take 2 min… in a reviewed branch. |
| "A report is enough, I'll ticket later" | "Later" never comes. Actions with no ticket number get lost (verified: 4 P1 actions lost that way). |
| "12 errors = 12 tickets, that's too many" | Group by cause, not by occurrence. But grouping ≠ omitting. |
| "The CVE, I'll run npm audit fix" | That's a code change. Ticket it with the proposed command inside. |
Red flags - STOP
- An Edit/Write on a code file during the sweep
- A
git commitduring the sweep - The final report contains "recommendations" with no ticket number against them
Exit condition
- All detected blocks were run (or explicitly marked skipped in the report)
- Each failure has a ticket in the tracker (1 per cause), with repro + error output + files
- Anti-duplicate checked (
sweeplabel) before each creation - Zero code changes, zero commits during the sweep
- Final report: table block | status | tickets, list of numbers, total and duration
Common options
Workflow directives for the sweep as a whole (state them when invoking the skill - they are NOT sweep.ts flags):
--dry-run (show without creating) · --quick (static blocks only) · --skip <block> (note it in the report) · --cap N (cap on tickets created per pass, default 5).
Tooling
- Test procedure:
scripts/sweep.test.ts- deterministic behavioral test of the script (positive + negative fixture). Runnpx tsx scripts/sweep.test.tsfrom the canonical repo after any change to the script (also picked up bynpm test). Not distributed to target repos. scripts/sweep.ts [path]- read-only detection sweep (npx tsx scripts/sweep.ts); its only argument is the path to scan. Detects: flagged debt (TODO/FIXME, lint suppressions), debug leftovers, fragile/disabled tests, swallowed errors, potential secrets, large files. Produces a report to triage (1 ticket per cause, not per occurrence).
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

