check-code-hygiene

name	check-code-hygiene
description	Check code for standardization, readability, maintenance complexity, and defensive coding
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.

Process

1. Read CLAUDE.md to understand the project's documented conventions and architecture.

2. Scan the source code (src/) for these categories of issues:

Standardization

• Inconsistent naming conventions (camelCase vs snake_case, abbreviations)
• Inconsistent patterns for similar operations (e.g., error handling done differently in similar contexts)
• Inconsistent import ordering or module organization
• Mixed paradigms without clear justification

Human Readability

• Functions that are too long or do too many things (>50 lines of logic)
• Deeply nested code (>3 levels of nesting)
• Unclear variable/function names that require reading the implementation to understand
• Missing or misleading comments on complex logic
• Magic numbers or strings without named constants
• Complex boolean expressions that should be extracted to named variables

Maintenance Complexity

• Tight coupling between modules that should be independent
• Circular dependencies
• God objects or functions that know too much about other modules
• Duplicated logic that should be shared
• Files that mix multiple unrelated concerns (check against the "one primary export per file" convention in CLAUDE.md)

Defensive Coding

• Unvalidated external input (API request bodies, query params, file contents)
• Missing error handling on I/O operations (file reads, network calls, database queries)
• Unsafe type assertions (as any, as unknown as T) that bypass type safety
• Non-null assertions (!) on values that could legitimately be null
• Race conditions in async code (missing await, unhandled promise rejections)

3. Generate the report organized by category. For each finding:

   • File path and line number(s)
   • Description of the issue
   • Severity: high (likely to cause bugs), medium (maintenance burden), low (style/consistency)
   • Suggested fix (brief)

4. Summary at the end with:

   • Total findings by severity
   • Top 5 files that need the most attention
   • Overall assessment

Present the report directly to the user. Focus on genuine issues — don't flag things that are intentional patterns documented in CLAUDE.md.