quality-project-health

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.

1. Identify the project root and current branch.
2. Inspect git state:
   • git status --short --branch
   • git diff --stat origin/main... when origin/main exists
   • git log --oneline --decorate --max-count=8 --graph --all
3. Identify the project type from files such as package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, go.mod, README*, CLAUDE.md, and AGENTS.md.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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:

1. Current status: branch, diff cleanliness, validation result.
2. Work tracker status: counts and active work, if available.
3. Quality rating: N/10 with 2-4 reasons.
4. Main risks or gaps.
5. Recommended next action.

If a check could not be run, say so directly. Do not imply certainty beyond the evidence gathered.