Inspect Python tooling skills before changing a project

Inspect a Python tooling skill before changing an existing project. A useful review separates the instruction files, tool versions, dependency model, migration cleanup and practical evidence, so a convenient checklist does not silently replace a workflow the project still needs.

Choose a workflow that matches the project

Modern Python Project Tooling packages Trail of Bits' workflow for uv, Ruff, ty, pytest and related tools. It routes readers to standalone-script guidance, project setup, packaging, testing and migration references. These are different tasks: a small script needs a different dependency and delivery decision from a library published for other developers.

Start with the intended output. Is the result a script someone will run once, an internal application maintained by a team, or a distributable package with supported Python versions? Record the existing runtime, dependency files, package metadata, CI commands and tests before choosing a route. For an existing project, the user's wish to retain its current tools is a constraint to respect, not a problem that a skill should automatically remove.

Our resource contains the original instructions, nine references, templates and source context. We did not run an AI client, install the tools, execute plugin hooks, migrate a project or publish a package for this resource. Its source review establishes the contents and redistribution notices. It does not establish that every suggested configuration works with your installed tool versions. Read the pinned upstream skill alongside the package notes.

Inspect the source and redistribution terms

The download preserves 18 selected upstream files byte for byte, including all 14 files in the original skill directory. Each was compared with its fixed Git blob and SHA-256 digest. The 27 local links collected from the instruction and reference files resolve inside the package, including repeated links to the same references. The root README's repository links remain source context; they do not mean that the complete marketplace is installed.

This source uses CC BY-SA 4.0. It is not an MIT-licensed Python tool distribution. We retain the full legal text, the publisher's separate license grant, William Tan's author credit, Trail of Bits attribution and original source links. The Creative Commons license page explains attribution, change indication and ShareAlike for adaptations. A free download can still carry redistribution conditions.

Compare the license shown on the resource page with the included notices before sharing or adapting it. Keep the distinction between the instruction material and external tools: installing uv, Ruff or pytest involves those projects' own distributions and terms. A brand asset in a source package does not imply that its original publisher endorses a directory or a modified workflow. Our added packaging notes and this guide are provided under CC BY-SA 4.0 with BB Skills attribution; the original source remains credited separately.

Check versions before copying configuration

The skill prefers Python 3.11 or newer for its project examples. That preference is distinct from the interpreter supported by each individual tool, and from the Python range a library promises to its users. Keep all three in the review. A tool installed successfully on the maintainer's computer does not prove that the application's lowest supported Python version still works.

A concrete example is pytest configuration. The source includes a [tool.pytest] table. The pytest configuration reference identifies native TOML configuration under that table as supported from pytest 9.0, while [tool.pytest.ini_options] has supported the older INI-style form from pytest 6.0. Identify the installed pytest version and the file it actually loads before copying a table or removing an older configuration file.

The source's recommendations for ty, uv_build and prek are choices for a modern workflow, not a universal claim that existing type checkers, build backends or hook systems are interchangeable. Review project-specific behavior such as typed-package metadata, data files, build-time dependencies, tool plugins and CI environments. Put expected behavior in the migration criteria rather than treating a tool's name as the acceptance test.

Separate script dependencies from project dependencies

For a standalone script, inspect how its dependencies are declared, how a reader obtains the interpreter and what network access the first run needs. The source's PEP 723 reference describes inline script metadata. uv's script guide explains its script environment and lockfile workflows. Inline metadata can make a script's needs visible without making dependency installation or the script's behavior automatically trustworthy.

For a project, inspect the dependency groups and lockfile along with the package requirements. A test tool belongs to the development workflow; a dependency needed by the published library belongs to its runtime requirements. Moving a package into the wrong group can leave a development checkout working while the distribution fails for users. Decide which artifact you are testing and install it through the route its users will take.

Commands can also change more than their final verb suggests. uv documents that project commands can update a lockfile or synchronize an environment. Its locking and syncing guide distinguishes --locked, which rejects a stale lockfile, from --frozen, which uses it without checking freshness. Exact synchronization can remove environment packages outside the selected lockfile set. Inspect these semantics for the intended version before running a command in a shared environment.

When recording a dependency experiment, include the interpreter and tool version, manifest and lockfile hashes, chosen groups, index or local package source, network access and resulting files. A checksum proves which file was used; it does not show that a dependency is free from malicious behavior or every vulnerability. No dependency resolution or installation was performed as part of this resource's published source review.

Preserve behavior before removing legacy files

The skill includes migration cleanup steps for requirements files, virtual environments, setup metadata and other tool configuration. Read them in the context of a migration the project owner actually chose. Preserve a recoverable snapshot and identify what each file currently provides. Deleting a file merely because its name appears in a cleanup list can remove supported installation instructions, package-data declarations or a deployment path still used by the team.

A useful migration comparison starts with behavior rather than file count. The old and new paths should cover the same required imports, command-line entry points, configuration loading and package data. Check application behavior and distribution contents separately. If the project supports multiple Python versions or platforms, identify which were actually tested and which remain outstanding. A single local success is evidence for that environment only.

Stage the change so failures remain understandable. Review dependency conversion first, then run the relevant existing tests, then examine packaging and CI. Remove obsolete files only once their responsibilities are accounted for. Record remaining differences instead of claiming an exact migration when a workflow was intentionally dropped. This guide does not supply permission to publish to PyPI, activate a CI integration or incur model and hosting costs.

Give linting, types and tests distinct jobs

Ruff can help identify and format many code patterns; type checking can expose inconsistencies in declared interfaces; tests can exercise selected runtime behavior. A clean result from any one of them does not establish the others. Choose checks that answer the change's actual uncertainty, rather than running more tools simply to accumulate green output.

The skill's coverage threshold is a project policy suggestion. Coverage measures execution of code under a particular test run; it does not measure whether the assertions distinguish a correct implementation from a plausible bug. Prefer a small set of tests that would fail under realistic regressions to assertions that merely repeat the implementation. Preserve meaningful existing tests when changing a runner or configuration.

Likewise, a dependency scanner reports the advisories and package identities it knows about. Record the tool, database freshness, scope and result before interpreting its output. A secret scanner, workflow auditor or linter has a different target. An empty report should not be relabeled as a complete production security audit. Our package review did not execute any of those scanners or record a passing tooling scenario.

Distinguish instructions from installed hooks

Trail of Bits' larger Claude plugin describes a SessionStart hook that prepends command shims to PATH. Those shims can affect subprocesses as well as commands typed by an assistant. Their behavior belongs to the plugin installation path; an instruction file on its own does not provide that enforcement.

Our download includes the plugin README and renamed metadata as source context, but it excludes the hook configuration and shim scripts. It does not install a hook or modify PATH. The original agent display metadata and asset are retained, and actual instruction/reference links remain complete. Check the pinned repository if you choose to review the larger plugin. A catalog client label is a browsing hint, not evidence that that plugin was installed or tested on that client.

Inspect each template before placing it in an active CI, Dependabot or pre-commit location. A YAML file can be inert in a downloaded package and become an active integration after being copied to the right folder. Identify its triggers, commands, external actions, dependencies and permissions. Keep credentials out of examples and public records; do not interpret the template's presence as an instruction to connect an account automatically.

Record a bounded result before adopting the workflow

For a practical trial, choose one small, non-sensitive project or script and a concrete acceptance criterion. Record the skill version and ZIP checksum, client and model if one is used, tool versions, input, commands, changed files and results. Include a negative case that would reveal a failure of the intended behavior, and distinguish generated suggestions from commands you actually executed.

Our current record is a source and package inspection, with no full skill runtime test. The source hash checks, complete references and license notices make the download inspectable; they do not turn it into a proven migration result. The development skill selection guide explains how to compare those kinds of evidence. Use the same discipline when comparing this workflow with a broader review or testing skill.

The instruction download is free, and no paid service was used for its review. You still need a suitable local environment and separately selected tools for a practical trial; external model plans and services can have their own costs. Decide those deliberately rather than accepting them as an implicit consequence of installation.

This original guide was drafted with AI assistance, checked against the pinned package and current primary references, and published by BB Skills. It preserves the distinction between source inspection and execution. The guide is shared under CC BY-SA 4.0; credit BB Skills, retain the license link and indicate changes when adapting it. It does not imply endorsement by Trail of Bits or the external tool maintainers.