review-tooling

name	review-tooling
description	Detect what dev tooling infrastructure a project has and flag gaps across linters, formatters, pre-commit hooks, test runners, and CI/CD pipelines. Returns structured findings without applying changes. Use when the user asks to "review tooling", "check project tooling", "what tooling is missing", "review dev infrastructure", or "tooling audit".

Review Tooling

Detect dev tooling infrastructure and flag gaps. Analysis only. Does not install or configure tools.

Scope

Tooling review always operates at the project level since config files live at the project root. Scope parameters (diff commands, file lists) are accepted but ignored.

When called standalone, use the git repository root as the project root (fall back to the current working directory if not in a git repo).

Step 1: Detect Tooling

Search for config files in the project root and subdirectories (exclude vendored directories like node_modules/, vendor/, .build/). Classify findings into five categories:

Linters

Config file pattern	Tool
.eslintrc*, eslint.config.*	ESLint
biome.json, biome.jsonc	Biome (linter + formatter)
deno.json, deno.jsonc with lint config	Deno lint
.swiftlint.yml	SwiftLint
ruff.toml, [tool.ruff] in pyproject.toml	Ruff
.pylintrc, pylintrc	Pylint
.flake8, [flake8] in setup.cfg	Flake8
.rubocop.yml	RuboCop
.golangci.yml, .golangci.yaml	golangci-lint
clippy.toml, .clippy.toml	Clippy
ktlint*, .editorconfig with ktlint	ktlint

Formatters

Config file pattern	Tool
.prettierrc*, prettier.config.*	Prettier
biome.json, biome.jsonc	Biome (linter + formatter)
deno.json, deno.jsonc with fmt config	Deno fmt
.swift-format, .swiftformat	swift-format / SwiftFormat
[tool.black] in pyproject.toml, pyproject.toml with [tool.ruff.format]	Black / Ruff formatter
rustfmt.toml, .rustfmt.toml	rustfmt
gofmt / goimports (check CI config or Makefile for usage)	gofmt
.clang-format	ClangFormat

Pre-commit Hooks

Config file pattern	Tool
.husky/ directory	Husky
.lintstagedrc*, lint-staged key in package.json	lint-staged
.pre-commit-config.yaml	pre-commit framework
.git/hooks/pre-commit (non-sample)	Custom git hook
.lefthook.yml, lefthook.yml	Lefthook

Test Runners

Config file pattern	Tool
jest.config.*, jest key in package.json	Jest
vitest.config.*	Vitest
pytest.ini, [tool.pytest] in pyproject.toml, conftest.py	pytest
Package.swift with test targets, *Tests/ directories	Swift Testing / XCTest
_test.go files	Go testing
Cargo.toml with [dev-dependencies], tests/ directory	Rust tests
.rspec, spec/ directory	RSpec
phpunit.xml*	PHPUnit

CI/CD Pipelines

Config file pattern	Tool
.github/workflows/*.yml	GitHub Actions
.gitlab-ci.yml	GitLab CI
Jenkinsfile	Jenkins
.circleci/config.yml	CircleCI
bitbucket-pipelines.yml	Bitbucket Pipelines
.travis.yml	Travis CI
azure-pipelines.yml	Azure Pipelines

These tables are not exhaustive. If the project uses a tool not listed here, detect it by recognizing its config files.

Step 2: Identify the Project Ecosystem

Determine the primary language(s) and ecosystem from config files and source code. This informs which tooling gaps are relevant. A Go project without Prettier is not a gap. A Node.js project without a linter is.

Signal	Ecosystem
package.json	Node.js / JavaScript / TypeScript
Package.swift, *.xcodeproj	Swift / Apple
pyproject.toml, setup.py, requirements.txt	Python
go.mod	Go
Cargo.toml	Rust
Gemfile	Ruby
pom.xml, build.gradle*	Java / Kotlin
deno.json, deno.jsonc	Deno

Step 3: Analyze Gaps

For each category, assess whether the project has adequate tooling for its ecosystem:

• Present and configured — tool detected with config file
• Partially configured — tool detected but config appears minimal or default
• Missing — no tool detected for a category where one is standard for the ecosystem

When assessing pre-commit hooks, also check whether detected linters and formatters are wired into the hooks. A project with ESLint and Prettier but no pre-commit hook means formatting issues can slip into commits.

When assessing CI/CD, check whether the pipeline runs tests and linters. A CI config that only builds but never tests is a gap.

Output Format

Format each finding as:

### [P<N>] <title (imperative, <=80 chars)>

**Category:** <Linters | Formatters | Pre-commit Hooks | Test Runners | CI/CD>

<one paragraph: what is missing or misconfigured and why it matters for this project>

After all findings, add:

## Tooling Summary

| Category | Status | Tool(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Linters | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> |
| Formatters | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> |
| Pre-commit Hooks | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> |
| Test Runners | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> |
| CI/CD | <Present/Partial/Missing> | <detected tools or "—"> |

## Overall Verdict

**Tooling:** <well-equipped | gaps found>

<1-3 sentence summary>

If all categories are adequately covered, report that and highlight what the project does well.

Priority Levels

• P0 — No test runner detected for a project with source code
• P1 — No linter for the primary language, or CI/CD pipeline exists but skips tests
• P2 — No formatter, no pre-commit hooks, or linter/formatter not wired into hooks
• P3 — No CI/CD pipeline, or minor config gaps