| name | check-code-hygiene |
| description | Check code for standardization, readability, maintenance complexity, and defensive coding practices |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Agent |
Analyze the codebase for code hygiene issues. Generate a report highlighting problems with standardization, human readability, maintenance complexity, and defensive coding.
Analysis Areas
1. Standardization
- Naming conventions: Are functions, variables, files, and CSS classes named consistently?
- File organization: Do files follow the one-primary-export-per-file guideline from CLAUDE.md?
- Import patterns: Are imports sorted consistently? Are relative vs absolute paths used consistently?
- Error handling patterns: Is error handling consistent across similar operations (e.g., API calls, DB queries, file I/O)?
- Code style: Are there mixed patterns for the same thing (e.g., some callbacks use arrow functions, others use function declarations)?
2. Human Readability
- Function length: Flag functions over 50 lines that should be broken up
- Nesting depth: Flag code with more than 3 levels of nesting
- Magic numbers/strings: Flag hardcoded values that should be constants
- Unclear naming: Flag variables/functions with ambiguous names (single letters, acronyms, etc.)
- Missing context: Complex logic without comments explaining the "why"
3. Maintenance Complexity
- Coupling: Identify tightly coupled modules that are hard to change independently
- Shared mutable state: Flag module-level mutable state that could cause bugs
- Callback chains: Flag deeply nested callbacks or promise chains that could be simplified
- Large switch/if-else chains: Flag complex branching that could be refactored
- Duplicate patterns: Code that does the same thing in slightly different ways
4. Defensive Coding
- Input validation: Are API inputs validated at the boundary?
- Error boundaries: Are errors caught and handled, or do they crash the process?
- Null safety: Are optional values checked before use?
- SQL injection: Are queries parameterized?
- Type safety: Are
any types used where specific types would be safer?
Report Format
For each finding:
- File: path and line numbers
- Category: standardization | readability | maintenance | defensive
- Severity: high | medium | low
- Description: What the issue is
- Suggestion: How to fix it
End with a prioritized summary of the top 10 most impactful improvements.
