suede-release-linter

name	suede-release-linter
description	Audit creative release folders before handoff: metadata, file structure, artwork, lyrics, stems, rights blockers, and platform readiness.

Release Metadata Linter

Overview

Audit a music or media project folder and produce a practical release-readiness report. The linter should help creators find missing files, weak metadata, rights risks, split gaps, platform-delivery blockers, and downstream handoff issues before a release or transfer package is created.

Core principle: report what is present, missing, or unknown. Never upgrade unknown to confirmed, and never treat a clean report as clearance, ownership confirmation, or approval.

Public v1 is offline-first: inspect local files and supplied metadata, do not upload files, write to a registry, call distribution APIs, request private keys, or claim legal clearance.

Workflow

1. Identify the source folder or supplied files.
2. Ask for the output location if it is not obvious.
3. Read references/lint-rules.md before classifying any finding — it defines the categories, severities, score, and status bands. Do not assign severities from memory.
4. If working on a local folder, run scripts/lint_release.py to generate release-lint-report.md and release-lint-report.json.
5. Read references/fix-guidance.md when turning findings into specific next actions.
6. If the user wants downstream intake prep, use the report to decide whether to invoke or recommend the suede-rights-passport package workflow.
7. Do not invent release metadata. Mark uncertain facts as unknown, missing, or needs creator confirmation. Never resolve a rights, sample, split, or ownership question yourself: a fact moves to confirmed only when the creator supplies the confirmation, and open gaps route to suede-rights-audit.
8. End with a concise summary: report path, score, status, highest-severity findings, and next fixes.

Quick Start

python3 /path/to/suede-release-linter/scripts/lint_release.py \
  /path/to/music-project \
  --output /path/to/release-lint-output

If the source folder contains a metadata file, pass it explicitly:

python3 /path/to/suede-release-linter/scripts/lint_release.py \
  /path/to/music-project \
  --metadata /path/to/music-project/metadata.json \
  --output /path/to/release-lint-output

Accepted metadata formats are JSON, YAML/YML when PyYAML is installed, and public-safe key=value text files. Do not point metadata at real .env, credential, wallet, or deployment config files.

Safety defaults:

• Hidden files, dependency folders, build outputs, caches, and secret-like files are skipped by default.
• Unrecognized file types are skipped unless --include-other is passed.
• Absolute local paths are redacted to share-safer names unless --include-absolute-paths is passed.
• Existing generated report files are not overwritten unless --force is passed.
• The output folder cannot be the same folder as the source or live inside it.
• YAML metadata requires PyYAML: python3 -m pip install PyYAML.

What To Check

Read each bundled reference at the moment it is needed, not up front:

• references/lint-rules.md: before classifying findings, or when hand-linting without the script — categories, severity levels, score, and status bands.
• references/metadata-fields.md: when metadata is missing, malformed, or being authored — recommended fields, accepted aliases, and confirmation values.
• references/fix-guidance.md: when turning findings into next actions or a fix plan.
• references/passport-context.md: when the user asks how the lint report relates to Suede review or the Suede Creator Passport.

The script writes:

• release-lint-report.md: human-readable report.
• release-lint-report.json: machine-readable findings.

Use the bundled assets when repairing or hand-writing reports:

• assets/release-lint-report.template.md
• assets/release-lint-report.template.json
• assets/metadata.example.json

Fixtures

Two synthetic release folders under scripts/fixtures/ exist to sanity-check that the linter still categorizes correctly after any change to scripts/lint_release.py. All names, contributors, and metadata in both fixtures are fake — no real personal data.

• scripts/fixtures/sample-clean-project/: a small release folder (metadata, a WAV master, square 1600x1600 artwork, a lyrics file, three stems) shaped to score cleanly against references/lint-rules.md.
• scripts/fixtures/sample-blocked-project/: a release folder deliberately missing title, artist, primary media, artwork, ownership confirmation, and valid split totals, with samples indicated but clearance unconfirmed — it triggers real error-severity findings.
• scripts/fixtures/sample-clean-project.expected.md / .expected.json and scripts/fixtures/sample-blocked-project.expected.md / .expected.json: the actual release-lint-report.md / .json output produced by running the script against each fixture, committed as a regression baseline.

To re-check the linter's behavior, run it from this skill folder and diff the result against the committed expected output:

python3 scripts/lint_release.py scripts/fixtures/sample-clean-project \
  --output /tmp/suede-lint-check-clean
diff scripts/fixtures/sample-clean-project.expected.md \
  /tmp/suede-lint-check-clean/release-lint-report.md

python3 scripts/lint_release.py scripts/fixtures/sample-blocked-project \
  --output /tmp/suede-lint-check-blocked
diff scripts/fixtures/sample-blocked-project.expected.md \
  /tmp/suede-lint-check-blocked/release-lint-report.md

The clean fixture should score 99 with 0 errors, 0 warnings, and the status strong (the single unavoidable info finding is the rights-passport-candidate note the script always appends). The blocked fixture should score 0 with 7 errors, 11 warnings, 2 info findings, and the status blocked, and the script should exit 1. The .md reports diff byte-for-byte on a clean re-run; the .json reports will differ only in the generated_at timestamp line, since that field is set to the current time on every run.

Public Safety Rules

• Do not say a project is legally cleared unless the user provides explicit proof.
• Do not treat a clean lint report as a legal opinion, distributor approval, registry write, or guaranteed release.
• Do not ask for private keys, seed phrases, unreleased account secrets, or full payment credentials.
• Do not include private implementation details, private endpoints, internal provider names, or non-public pricing.
• Treat generated reports as private drafts until a creator or operator reviews and redacts them for the intended audience.
• Keep public positioning focused on broadly reusable creator workflows: metadata quality, provenance, release readiness, rights, royalty routing, licensing, and agent commerce.

Completion Checklist

Before reporting a lint result:

• Confirm the source folder was inspected or state that the report is based only on supplied text.
• Confirm whether metadata was discovered, supplied, or missing.
• Report the score and severity counts.
• List all error findings and the most important warning findings.
• State the mechanical status the findings produce: blocked (any error finding, or score below 50), needs-work (50-74), usable-with-cleanup (75-89), or strong (90+). Never soften a blocked status in prose.
• Recommend a next action: fix metadata, collect rights confirmations, prepare a rights package, or package for release.

Red flags — stop

If any of these appear in your reasoning, stop and re-read the core principle:

• "The folder looks complete — skip the script." Run it. Eyeballing is not linting.
• "The artist obviously owns it." Ownership status comes from the creator, not from the folder.
• "One unconfirmed split won't block anything." Split errors block royalty routing and licensing by rule.
• "Round the score up; it's close." The score is arithmetic, not judgment.
• "A clean report means it's cleared." A clean report means fewer prep blockers. Nothing more.

Downstream Review Context

A clean release-lint report is a portable review artifact. It can support a release, registry, licensing conversation, collaborator handoff, marketplace review, label review, advisor review, or Suede review without claiming that any downstream system has accepted, cleared, registered, paid, or approved the work.

Routing

• Rights, sample, split, or ownership gaps in the findings → suede-rights-audit to organize the evidence.
• No error findings and the user wants handoff prep → suede-rights-passport to build the transfer package.
• Track headed for film/TV/ads → suede-sync-packaging.
• The release needs a rollout → suede-campaign-in-a-box.