checking-files-with-lsp（使用 lsp 检查文件）

Checking Files With LSP

Overview

When you need to validate, check, or understand a file's structure or code quality, use language servers and linters to do it systematically. This skill provides a reliable workflow: detect the file type, search mise for available LSP/linter tools, intelligently choose one, and run the check.

Core principle: Let the appropriate tool for the language do the validation work, not manual inspection. Automate tool discovery and selection.

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• Checking code files for syntax errors, type issues, or style problems
• Validating configuration files (YAML, TOML, JSON, KDL, etc.)
• Understanding code structure or quality of unfamiliar files
• Verifying Markdown files for formatting/link issues
• Need to quickly understand what problems exist in a file

Don't use when:

• Just reading a file to understand its contents (no validation needed)
• Running full test suites (that's testing, not validation)
• Analyzing code behavior (that's debugging, not validation)

The Workflow

Step 1: Detect File Type

Determine the language/type from file extension:

.lua     → lua
.ts/.tsx → typescript
.py      → python
.go      → go
.rs      → rust
.md      → markdown
.json    → json
.yaml    → yaml
.toml    → toml
.kdl     → kdl

If extension is unclear or missing, inspect file shebang or content patterns.

Step 2: Search Mise for LSP/Linters

Run: mise search <filetype>

This returns all available language servers, linters, and formatters for that language.

Example outputs:

mise search lua
lua-language-server    (most popular)
stylua                 (formatter)

mise search python
pyright
pylance
python-language-server
black
ruff

Step 3: Make Smart Selection

Prioritize by tool type: Language Server (LSP) > Linter > Formatter

LSPs provide the most comprehensive validation. Linters catch style/quality issues. Formatters are secondary for validation purposes.

If ONE obvious choice exists:

• Auto-select it (e.g., only lua-language-server for Lua)
• Verify installation: mise list | grep <tool> (if not listed, install it)
• Install: mise install lua-language-server
• Run it on the file

If MULTIPLE choices exist:

• Filter by priority: Show LSPs first, linters second, skip formatters
• Rank by popularity: Most-used tools first (measured by GitHub stars, then npm/PyPI downloads as tiebreaker)
• Show ranked list to user (with tool type and brief descriptions)
• Let user pick by number/letter
• Verify and install selected tool
• Run it on the file

If NO tools found:

• Inform user explicitly: "No LSP/linter available in mise for [filetype]"
• Suggest alternatives in order:

1. Check online package managers (npm, PyPI, cargo, etc.) if not in mise 2. Look for generic validators (jq for JSON, yamllint for YAML, etc.) 3. Basic syntax checking (built-in language checkers) 4. Manual validation with structured guidance

• Offer: "Would you like me to help install from another source?"

Step 4: Run Validation

Execute the selected tool against the file and return results: errors, warnings, style issues, and suggestions.

Quick Reference

Common Mistakes

Mistake: Skip file type detection

• Wrong: "It's a code file, any language server works"
• Right: File type determines which LSP applies. Wrong LSP = wrong errors

Mistake: Pick random LSP when multiple exist

• Wrong: "I'll just try the first one" or "They're all the same"
• Right: Different LSPs check different aspects. Use ranking: most popular > less common. Filter by type: LSP > Linter > Formatter
• No exceptions: You must present options to user when multiple exist, not guess

Mistake: Assume LSP is installed

• Wrong: "Let me just run lua-language-server..."
• Right: Always verify with mise search first. Check mise list before installing. Install if needed

Mistake: Don't check system requirements

• Wrong: "Install the LSP and it'll work"
• Right: Some LSPs need runtime dependencies (Python, Node, etc.). Test LSP runs before reporting results

Mistake: When LSP unavailable, give up

• Wrong: "No tool for this language, can't validate"
• Right: Explore alternatives in order: online package managers → generic validators → syntax checking → manual guidance

Mistake: Mixing tool categories

• Wrong: Showing formatters and linters equally for validation
• Right: Prioritize LSP > Linter > Formatter. Use tool type as first filter

Fallback Validation Options

When LSP/linter not available in mise:

1. Check online package managers (npm, PyPI, cargo, etc.) if not in mise
2. Look for generic validators - JSON validators, YAML checkers work across projects
3. Basic syntax checking - Some languages have built-in syntax checkers
4. Manual validation - Provide structured review guidance
5. Suggest installation - "Would you like me to help install from another source?"

Implementation Steps

When helping a user check a file:

1. Ask or determine: "What file are we checking?"
2. Detect the file type from extension
3. Run: mise search <filetype>
4. Decide: obvious choice or show ranked options?
5. Verify installation: mise list | grep <tool> (check if already installed)
6. Install if needed: mise install <selected-tool>
7. Test tool runs: Verify LSP/linter executes without errors
8. Run: Execute tool against file with appropriate flags
9. Report: Show user the validation results
10. Offer next steps: "Fix these issues?" or "Run checks again?"

Troubleshooting

Tool installs but won't run:

• Some LSPs need runtime dependencies (Python for some tools, Node for others)
• Check LSP documentation for runtime requirements
• Example: python-language-server needs Python installed
• Verify with: mise exec <tool> -- <tool> --version

Mise search returns no results:

• Language might not be in mise database
• Try alternative package managers: npm (JavaScript), PyPI (Python), cargo (Rust)
• Or use generic validators: jq (JSON), yamllint (YAML)

LSP finds errors but tool isn't right for the job:

• Wrong tool selected (formatter instead of LSP)
• Go back to Step 3, filter by type priority (LSP > Linter)
• Ask user to pick a different option from the list

File has unusual extension:

• Use file content inspection (shebang, headers) as fallback
• Example: Executable shell scripts often lack .sh extension
• Check content to confirm type before searching mise

Real-World Impact

• Fast validation: No manual code review for common issues
• Consistent checking: Same tool, same criteria, every time
• Discovery: Find issues you'd miss with manual inspection
• Automation: Can be integrated into workflows, CI/CD, pre-commit hooks
• Language agnostic: Same pattern works for any language with an LSP available