writing-hooks

Writing Hooks

Overview

Writing hooks IS creating automated quality gates.

Hooks run on Claude Code events (PreToolUse, PostToolUse, etc.) and can block actions with exit code 2.

Core principle: Hooks enforce what humans forget. Fast checks only—slow hooks kill productivity.

Violating the letter of the rules is violating the spirit of the rules.

Routing

Pattern: Skill Steps Handoff: none Next: none

Task Initialization (MANDATORY)

Before ANY action, create task list using TaskCreate:

TaskCreate for EACH task below:
- Subject: "[writing-hooks] Task N: <action>"
- ActiveForm: "<doing action>"

Tasks:

1. Analyze requirements
2. RED - Test without hook
3. GREEN - Write hook script
4. Configure settings.json
5. Validate behavior
6. Test blocking
7. REFACTOR - Quality review

Announce: "Created 7 tasks. Starting execution..."

Execution rules:

1. TaskUpdate status="in_progress" BEFORE starting each task
2. TaskUpdate status="completed" ONLY after verification passes
3. If task fails → stay in_progress, diagnose, retry
4. NEVER skip to next task until current is completed
5. At end, TaskList to confirm all completed

TDD Mapping for Hooks

TDD Phase	Hook Creation	What You Do
RED	Test without hook	Write code, observe quality issues slip through
Verify RED	Document violations	Note specific issues that should be caught
GREEN	Write hook	Create script that catches those issues
Verify GREEN	Test blocking	Verify exit code 2 blocks violating code
REFACTOR	Optimize speed	Reduce hook runtime, filter file types

Task 1: Analyze Requirements

Goal: Understand what quality gate to create.

Questions to answer:

• What violation should be blocked?
• Which files should be checked?
• What tool/command performs the check?
• What event triggers the hook?

Event Selection:

Event	When	Use For
PreToolUse	Before tool runs	Block bad writes before they happen
PostToolUse	After tool runs	Validate written code
UserPromptSubmit	Before prompt processed	Add context to prompts

Verification: Can describe the violation and the command to detect it.

Task 2: RED - Test Without Hook

Goal: Write code WITHOUT the hook. Observe violations that slip through.

Process:

1. Ask agent to write code in the target file type
2. Intentionally introduce the violation (bad format, type error, etc.)
3. Observe that Claude Code doesn't catch it
4. Document the specific violation

Verification: Documented at least 1 violation that should have been caught.

Task 3: GREEN - Write Hook Script

Goal: Create Python script that catches the violations you documented.

Hook Structure

.claude/hooks/
├── eslint_check.py
├── prettier_check.py
└── typecheck.py

Exit Code Contract

Code	Meaning	Effect
0	Pass	Continue, stdout shown in verbose
2	Block	Action blocked, stderr fed to Claude
Other	Warning	Continue, stderr shown in verbose

Hook Template

See references/static-checks.md for complete hook templates. Key pattern: read JSON from stdin, filter by extension, run check, exit 2 to block.

Critical Requirements

• Fast - Under 5 seconds, hooks run synchronously
• Filter files - Only check relevant extensions
• Limit output - First 5-10 errors, not all
• Use Python - Cross-platform, wrapped shell commands

Verification:

• Script is executable (chmod +x)
• Returns exit code 0 for valid files
• Returns exit code 2 for violations
• Runs under 5 seconds

Task 4: Configure settings.json

Goal: Register hook in .claude/settings.json.

CRITICAL: Use .claude/settings.json, NOT settings.local.json. Settings are team-shared.

Configuration Format

{
  "hooks": {
    "PostToolUse": [
      {
        "matcher": "Write|Edit",
        "hooks": [{
          "type": "command",
          "command": "\"$CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR\"/.claude/hooks/eslint_check.py",
          "timeout": 30
        }]
      }
    ]
  }
}

Matcher Patterns

Matcher	Matches
Write|Edit	Write or Edit tools
Bash	Bash tool only
.*	All tools

Verification:

• Hook registered in correct event
• Matcher targets correct tools
• Command path uses $CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR
• Timeout is reasonable (5-30 seconds)

Task 5: Validate Behavior

Goal: Verify hook script works correctly.

Test command:

echo '{"tool_input":{"file_path":"test.ts"}}' | .claude/hooks/your_hook.py
echo $?  # Should be 0 (pass) or 2 (block)

Checklist:

• Valid file returns exit code 0
• Invalid file returns exit code 2
• Errors go to stderr, info to stdout
• Completes under 5 seconds

Verification: Manual test passes for both valid and invalid inputs.

Task 6: Test Blocking

Goal: Verify hook actually blocks bad code in Claude Code.

Process:

1. Ask Claude to write code with the violation
2. Observe hook blocks the action
3. Verify error message is fed back to Claude
4. Claude should fix and retry

Verification:

• Hook blocks violating code
• Claude receives feedback and fixes the issue

Task 7: REFACTOR - Quality Review

Goal: Have hook reviewed by hook-reviewer subagent.

Agent tool:
- subagent_type: "rcc:hook-reviewer"
- prompt: "Review hook at [path/to/hook] with settings at [path/to/.claude/settings.json]"

Outcomes:

• Pass → Hook complete
• Needs Fix → Fix issues, re-run reviewer, repeat until Pass
• Fail → Major problems, return to Task 3

This is the REFACTOR phase: Close loopholes identified by reviewer.

Verification: hook-reviewer returns "Pass" rating.

Common Hook Patterns

See references/static-checks.md for linting, type checking, and auto-fix examples.

Red Flags - STOP

These thoughts mean you're rationalizing. STOP and reconsider:

• "Hooks are overkill for this project"
• "I'll just remember to run linting"
• "5 seconds is too strict"
• "Check all files, not just changed ones"
• "Skip testing, the logic is simple"
• "Use settings.local.json for team hooks"

All of these mean: You're about to create a weak hook. Follow the process.

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"I'll remember to lint"	You won't. Hooks enforce what humans forget.
"Slow hooks are thorough"	Slow hooks = disabled hooks. Keep it fast.
"Check everything"	Full project check = 30+ seconds. Check changed file only.
"settings.local.json"	Local = not shared. Team hooks go in settings.json.
"Simple logic doesn't need tests"	Hook failures are silent. Always test.

Flowchart: Hook Creation

digraph hook_creation {
    rankdir=TB;

    start [label="Need hook", shape=doublecircle];
    analyze [label="Task 1: Analyze\nrequirements", shape=box];
    baseline [label="Task 2: RED\nTest without hook", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
    write [label="Task 3: GREEN\nWrite hook script", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
    config [label="Task 4: Configure\nsettings.json", shape=box];
    validate [label="Task 5: Validate\nbehavior", shape=box];
    validate_pass [label="Tests\npassed?", shape=diamond];
    test [label="Task 6: Test\nblocking", shape=box];
    review [label="Task 7: REFACTOR\nQuality review", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
    review_pass [label="Review\npassed?", shape=diamond];
    done [label="Hook complete", shape=doublecircle];

    start -> analyze;
    analyze -> baseline;
    baseline -> write;
    write -> config;
    config -> validate;
    validate -> validate_pass;
    validate_pass -> test [label="yes"];
    validate_pass -> write [label="no"];
    test -> review;
    review -> review_pass;
    review_pass -> done [label="pass"];
    review_pass -> write [label="fail\nfix issues"];
}

References

• references/static-checks.md - Complete hook examples
• references/events.md - Hook events reference