◇ Could this help me?
Yes, and the design discipline is the part worth copying more than the five specific scans. Every routine here ends in a reviewed shortlist rather than an action, and two of them state the no-automatic-changes rule outright, which is exactly right for recurring jobs that run without anyone watching: a scheduled task that deletes or moves things on its own will eventually do it to something that mattered. The other strong detail is that each output carries a verifier and a smallest-patch suggestion, so a recommendation arrives with the means to check it rather than as a bare assertion. General practice, and the fourth scan is the one most people never think to build, since instruction and tooling bloat accumulates invisibly and quietly degrades everything else.
Help me design a set of recurring review scans for my own work, following one rule: every scan produces a reviewed shortlist and never changes anything automatically. I want scans that find repeated problems worth turning into a reusable system, that catch drift in a project such as stale docs and missing tests, that spot patterns worth copying from one project to another, that flag accumulated instruction and tooling bloat with keep, compact, disable, or delete recommendations, and that group loose files into move candidates, duplicates, and ambiguous cases. For each one, define the exact output format, and make every recommendation carry its evidence, its risk level, the smallest change that would fix it, and how I verify it worked.