brooks-lint-marketplace

brooks-lint

AI code reviews grounded in six classic engineering books.
Consistent. Traceable. Actionable.

The Six Decay Risks • What It Looks Like • Benchmark • Installation

---

"The bearing of a child takes nine months, no matter how many women are assigned." — Frederick Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month (1975)

50 years later, Brooks was still right — and so were McConnell, Fowler, Martin, Hunt & Thomas, Evans, Ousterhout, Winters, Meszaros, Osherove, Feathers, and the Google Testing team.

Most code quality tools count lines and cyclomatic complexity. brooks-lint goes deeper — it diagnoses your code against six decay risk dimensions synthesized from ten classic engineering books, producing structured findings with book citations, severity labels, and concrete remedies every time.

The Ten Books

Book	Author	Contributes to
The Mythical Man-Month	Frederick Brooks	R2, R4, R5
Code Complete	Steve McConnell	R1, R4
Refactoring	Martin Fowler	R1, R2, R3, R4, R6
Clean Architecture	Robert C. Martin	R2, R5
The Pragmatic Programmer	Hunt & Thomas	R2, R3, R4, R5, T2, T3
Domain-Driven Design	Eric Evans	R1, R3, R6
A Philosophy of Software Design	John Ousterhout	R1, R4
Software Engineering at Google	Winters, Manshreck & Wright	R2, R5
Working Effectively with Legacy Code	Michael Feathers	T4, T5, T6
xUnit Test Patterns	Gerard Meszaros	T1, T2, T3, T4

The Six Decay Risks

brooks-lint evaluates your code across six decay risk dimensions synthesized from ten classic engineering books:

Decay Risk	Diagnostic Question	Sources
🧠 Cognitive Overload	How much mental effort to understand this?	Code Complete, Refactoring, DDD, Philosophy of SD
🔗 Change Propagation	How many unrelated things break on one change?	Refactoring, Clean Architecture, Pragmatic, SE@Google
📋 Knowledge Duplication	Is the same decision expressed in multiple places?	Pragmatic, Refactoring, DDD
🌀 Accidental Complexity	Is the code more complex than the problem?	Refactoring, Code Complete, Brooks, Philosophy of SD
🏗️ Dependency Disorder	Do dependencies flow in a consistent direction?	Clean Architecture, Brooks, Pragmatic, SE@Google
🗺️ Domain Model Distortion	Does the code faithfully represent the domain?	DDD, Refactoring

Philosophy of SD = A Philosophy of Software Design (Ousterhout) · SE@Google = Software Engineering at Google (Winters et al.)

What It Looks Like

Given this code:

class UserService:
    def update_profile(self, user_id, name, email, avatar_url):
        user = self.db.query(f"SELECT * FROM users WHERE id = {user_id}")
        user['email'] = email
        ...
        if user['email'] != email:   # always False — silent bug
            self.smtp.send(...)
        points = user['login_count'] * 10 + 500
        self.db.execute(f"UPDATE loyalty SET points={points} WHERE user_id={user_id}")

brooks-lint produces:

---

Health Score: 28/100

This method concentrates four unrelated business responsibilities into a single function, contains a logic bug that silently suppresses email change notifications, and is wide open to SQL injection.

🔴 Change Propagation — Single Method Changes for Four Unrelated Business Reasons

Symptom: update_profile performs profile field updates, email change notifications, loyalty points recalculation, and cache invalidation all in one method body. Source: Fowler — Refactoring — Divergent Change; Hunt & Thomas — The Pragmatic Programmer — Orthogonality Consequence: Any change to the loyalty formula risks breaking email notifications and vice versa. Every edit carries regression risk across four unrelated domains simultaneously. Remedy: Extract NotificationService, LoyaltyService, and UserCacheInvalidator. UserService.update_profile should orchestrate by calling each — it should hold no implementation logic itself.