| name | quality-project-health |
| description | Assess the current project's repo and work-tracker status, then rate overall project health from 0-10. Invoke via /quality-project-health. |
| argument-hint | [focus] |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Quality Project Health
Answer the Claude command this skill ports:
What's the status of this project? Rate it on a quality level of 0-10.
Usage: /quality-project-health [focus]
focus is optional. If present, use it to bias the inspection toward a
subsystem, feature, skill, package, or task. Do not edit files.
Workflow
Gather evidence before rating. Keep commands read-only unless the user
explicitly asks for follow-up work.
- Identify the project root and current branch.
- Inspect git state:
git status --short --branchgit diff --stat origin/main... when origin/main existsgit log --oneline --decorate --max-count=8 --graph --all
- Identify the project type from files such as
package.json,
pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod, README*, CLAUDE.md, and
AGENTS.md.
- Run the cheapest relevant validation command if it is obvious from the
repo. Examples:
bun run check, npm test, pytest, cargo test,
go test ./.... If validation would be expensive or destructive, skip it
and say why.
- If
.project/config.json and .project/scripts/board.sh exist (or the
legacy .github/gh-project.json + .github/scripts/gh-project-board.sh),
use the helper for a read-only board snapshot:
- list all items and count by status
- list current
In Progress cards
- mention the next few
Todo cards only if it helps orient the user
- If there are local notes in
.context/, read only files that look relevant
to the status request, such as todos.md.
Health Rating
Rate project health from 0-10 using concrete evidence:
- 0-2: not runnable or largely missing; core purpose unclear
- 3-4: recognizable shape, but major blockers, failing checks, or missing
foundations
- 5-6: usable but uneven; important gaps, stale tasks, or weak validation
- 7-8: healthy and shippable for current scope; some known follow-up work
- 9: polished, well-tested, documented, and actively maintained
- 10: exceptional: comprehensive validation, clean backlog, strong docs,
mature release path, and no material unknowns
Do not give a high score just because the working tree is clean. Consider
tests, docs, release readiness, task-board health, and unresolved work.
Output
Keep the final answer compact and evidence-led:
- Current status: branch, diff cleanliness, validation result.
- Work tracker status: counts and active work, if available.
- Quality rating:
N/10 with 2-4 reasons.
- Main risks or gaps.
- Recommended next action.
If a check could not be run, say so directly. Do not imply certainty beyond
the evidence gathered.
