codeguard-typescript

TypeScript / JavaScript Codeguard gate

Goal: turn "looks fine" into repeatable tool evidence, and honestly distinguish pass, fail, unable to verify, and planned.

30-second start

1. At the repository root, confirm package.json`, `deno.json or the target file exists.
2. Detect tools:npx --no-install eslint --version。
3. First do a read-only check:npx --no-install eslint . --max-warnings 0。
4. Classify results into: code violations, missing configuration, missing tools, tool internal errors.
5. Only perform safe fixes:npx eslint . --fix。
6. Re-run lint, and run the project's existing test/build gates.

Can directly propose:

• "Check this TypeScript / JavaScript project, do not modify anything first, and give me a classification of lint failures."
• "Only fix TypeScript / JavaScript formatting issues, and list semantic issues first."
• "Verify TypeScript / JavaScript lint, test, and build evidence before committing."

Capability boundaries

✅ Good at handling

1. Based on .ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx, .mjs, .cjs and project markers, identify the TypeScript / JavaScript workspace.
2. Run npx --no-install eslint . --max-warnings 0 and preserve exit code, scope, and tool version.
3. Distinguish formatting, static rules, configuration, dependency, and environment failures.
4. Use npx eslint . --fix to handle reversible issues and re-scan.
5. Report local results separately from CI/build/test evidence.

⚠️ Requires conditions

1. The target tool must already be installed and its version compatible with project constraints.
2. Must be run from the correct repository or module root.
3. If the project has custom configuration, the committed configuration prevails.
4. Whether generated code, vendor, and cache directories are scanned must follow repository rules.

❌ Not applicable

1. Do not treat formatter passing as compilation, test, or security audit passing.
2. Do not silently install tools, upgrade dependencies, or modify team rules.
3. Do not use suppress/ignore/raising thresholds to hide real problems.
4. Do not claim "check passed" when tools or configuration are missing.

When to use

• The user asks to check or fix TypeScript / JavaScript code standards.
• AI modified .ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx, .mjs, .cjs, requiring pre-commit verification.
• CI has failures related to npx --no-install eslint . --max-warnings 0 .
• Need to determine whether a problem can be fixed automatically or must be handled manually.

When not to use

• When the main task is learning language syntax, framework design, or business modeling, use the corresponding language professional skill instead.
• When the main task is dependency vulnerabilities, security auditing, or license governance, use a dedicated security skill.
• When the user only asks to explain one error and there is no project context, first give a local explanation and do not claim the repository is all green.

Data and security

This skill does not collect, upload, send, or store user code and credentials. By default it only reads local repository configuration and runs local tools; it does not install dependencies over the network, and does not record tokens, passwords, or private source code. Before any automatic fix, check the diff first; destructive or large-scale changes must be explicitly confirmed by the user.

Execution Contract

Item	Current Fact
Status	stable(Since Codeguard V0.1)
File Extension	.ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx, .mjs, .cjs
Project Marker	package.json, deno.json
Integration Configuration	eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs, eslint.config.cjs, eslint.config.ts, .eslintrc.json, .eslintrc.js, .eslintrc.yml, .pre-commit-config.yaml
Tool Preparation	Project requires eslint to be installed
Probe Command	npx --no-install eslint --version
lint	npx --no-install eslint . --max-warnings 0
format/fix	npx eslint . --fix
Project-level gate	npx --no-install eslint . --max-warnings 0

Standard Workflow

Step 1: Determine the Real Scope

Confirm the repository root, module root, generated directories, vendor directories and user-specified files. For multi-module projects, first list the modules that will be scanned; do not guess based on the current directory.

Step 2: Read the Project Contract

Read eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs, eslint.config.cjs, eslint.config.ts, .eslintrc.json, .eslintrc.js, .eslintrc.yml, .pre-commit-config.yaml and the actual commands in CI. Repository configuration takes precedence over this skill's examples; if the two conflict, report the differences first.

Step 3: Probe Tools and Versions

Run npx --no-install eslint --version. Missing tools, incompatible versions or configurations that fail to load are all recorded as "unable to verify", not passed.

Step 4: Run Read-Only Checks

Run npx --no-install eslint . --max-warnings 0, recording the command, working directory, exit code, tool version and the first actionable error.

Step 5: Failure Classification

Type	Typical Signal	Handling
Format	Indentation, whitespace, import order	Formatter allowed, then check the diff
Static Rules	unused, complexity, naming, dangerous API	Minimal semantic fixes, no batch guessing
Configuration	parser/config/schema not found	Fix the integration or report the preconditions
Environment	command not found, version conflict	Report installation/version requirements, do not install silently
Tool Internal Error	crash, timeout, parser exception	Preserve the raw evidence, narrow the reproduction scope

Step 6: Controlled Fixes

Prefer running npx eslint . --fix. Only handle issues that are certain and reversible; dependency upgrades, rule exemptions, generated files and business semantic changes must be explained separately.

Step 7: Verification Loop

Re-run the same lint command, then run the project's existing tests and build. Only write "passed" when the command, scope and exit code are all clear; otherwise write "not run" or "unable to verify".

Rules

1. Same-command Re-verification: After fixing, the original command that triggered the failure must be re-run.
2. Layered Evidence: lint, format, compile, test and security are reported separately.
3. Minimal Changes: Do not refactor along the way, and do not expand style fixes into business rewrites.
4. Configuration First: Do not override the project's existing ignore, dialect, target or version constraints.
5. No Fabrication: Tools not run, configurations not seen and platforms not verified must be clearly marked.

Output Template

TypeScript / JavaScript Codeguard 结果
- 范围：<仓库/模块/文件>
- 工具：<名称与版本>
- 命令：<实际命令>
- 状态：PASS / FAIL / UNVERIFIED / PLANNED
- 发现：<按格式/规则/配置/环境分类>
- 修改：<文件与原因；无修改写 none>
- 复验：<命令、退出码>
- 未验证：<测试/构建/平台差异>

Gotchas

1. Missing tools is not a pass — must output UNVERIFIED and a clear preparation method.
2. formatter is not a linter — all-green formatting cannot cover static rules or compilation errors.
3. The root directory determines the result — Running in the wrong module may miss detections or load the wrong configuration.
4. Placeholders are not literal arguments — {file} and must be replaced with real, authorized paths.
5. Auto-fix may expand the diff — after fixing, review the diff first, then run the regression gate.
6. Generation and vendor directories require an explicit policy — do not scan or modify third-party content across the entire repository at will.

Domain pitfalls and fixes

1. Domain pitfall — adhere to npx --no-install, and avoid silently downloading and changing the dependency tree during the check process.
2. Domain pitfall — ESLint flat config and legacy .eslintrc have different resolution rules; first confirm which one the project actually uses.

When information is insufficient

Do not just say "please provide more information." First give a safe read-only inspection plan and list the specific items that still need confirmation:

1. Repository/module root directory;
2. Target tool and version;
3. Project configuration files;
4. Authoritative commands in CI;
5. Whether auto-fix is allowed.

FAQ

Q1: If the tool is not installed, can we conclude the code is fine? No. The status must be UNVERIFIED。

Q2: Can ignore or suppression be added automatically? No. An exemption is allowed only when the user explicitly accepts it and the reason is recorded.

Q3: Why does it still fail after formatting? The formatter only covers formatting; static rules, configuration, compilation, and tests still need to be handled separately.

Q4: Should generated code be scanned? By default, follow the repository configuration; if there is no rule, exclude generated/vendor first, then explain to the user.

Q5: How can we avoid changing too much at once? First fix in batches by failure category and file, and for each batch rerun the original command and review the diff.

Q6: If it passes locally, can we say CI will pass? No. You also need to align CI's version, environment variables, operating system, and command scope.

Load resources on demand

• When encountering exit codes, failure classification, or exemption decisions, read references/rules/gate-rules.md。
• When you need to verify this language's registry, toolchain, and project configuration, read references/tooling/toolchain.md。
• When you need copyable task examples, read by scenario examples/, and there is no need to load them all at once.