Claude Code Plugins

Community-maintained marketplace

Feedback

codebase-analysis

@outfitter-dev/agents
0
0

Evidence-based codebase investigation methodology. Use when analyzing codebases, understanding architecture, exploring patterns, or investigating technical problems. Triggers when user asks to analyze, investigate, understand, research, or explore code. Core foundation for analyst and debugger agents.

Install Skill

1Download skill
2Enable skills in Claude

Open claude.ai/settings/capabilities and find the "Skills" section

3Upload to Claude

Click "Upload skill" and select the downloaded ZIP file

Note: Please verify skill by going through its instructions before using it.

SKILL.md

name codebase-analysis
version 1.0.0
description Evidence-based codebase investigation methodology. Use when analyzing codebases, understanding architecture, exploring patterns, or investigating technical problems. Triggers when user asks to analyze, investigate, understand, research, or explore code. Core foundation for analyst and debugger agents.

Codebase Analysis

Evidence-based investigation → findings → confidence-tracked conclusions.

  • Codebase exploration and understanding
  • Architecture analysis and mapping
  • Pattern extraction and recognition
  • Technical research within code
  • Performance or security analysis

NOT for: wild guessing, assumptions without evidence, conclusions before investigation

Bar Lvl Name Action
░░░░░ 0 Gathering Collect initial evidence
▓░░░░ 1 Surveying Broad scan, surface patterns
▓▓░░░ 2 Investigating Deep dive, verify patterns
▓▓▓░░ 3 Analyzing Cross-reference, fill gaps
▓▓▓▓░ 4 Synthesizing Connect findings, high confidence
▓▓▓▓▓ 5 Concluded Deliver findings

Calibration: 0=0–19%, 1=20–39%, 2=40–59%, 3=60–74%, 4=75–89%, 5=90–100%

Start honest. Clear codebase + focused question → level 2–3. Vague or complex → level 0–1.

At level 4: "High confidence in findings. One more angle would reach full certainty. Continue or deliver now?"

Below level 5: include △ Caveats section.

Core Methodology

Evidence over assumption — investigate when you can, guess only when you must.

Multi-source gathering — code, docs, tests, history, web research, runtime behavior.

Multiple angles — examine from different perspectives before concluding.

Document gaps — flag uncertainty with △, track what's unknown.

Show your work — findings include supporting evidence, not just conclusions.

Calibrate confidence — distinguish fact from inference from assumption.

Source Priority

  1. Direct observation — read code, run searches, examine files
  2. Documentation — official docs, inline comments, ADRs
  3. Tests — reveal intended behavior and edge cases
  4. History — git log, commit messages, PR discussions
  5. External research — library docs, Stack Overflow, RFCs
  6. Inference — logical deduction from available evidence
  7. Assumption — clearly flagged when other sources unavailable

Investigation Patterns

Start broad, then narrow:

  • File tree → identify relevant areas
  • Search patterns → locate specific code
  • Code structure → understand without full content
  • Read targeted files → examine implementation
  • Cross-reference → verify understanding

Layer evidence:

  • What does the code do? (direct observation)
  • Why was it written this way? (history, comments)
  • How does it fit the system? (architecture, dependencies)
  • What are the edge cases? (tests, error handling)

Follow the trail:

  • Function calls → trace execution paths
  • Imports/exports → map dependencies
  • Test files → understand usage patterns
  • Error messages → reveal assumptions
  • Comments → capture historical context

During Investigation

After each evidence-gathering step emit:

  • Confidence: {BAR} {NAME}
  • Found: { key discoveries }
  • Patterns: { emerging themes }
  • Gaps: { what's still unclear }
  • Next: { investigation direction }

At Delivery (Level 5)

Findings

{ numbered list of discoveries with supporting evidence }

  1. {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}
  2. {FINDING} — evidence: {SOURCE}

Patterns

{ recurring themes or structures identified }

Implications

{ what findings mean for the question at hand }

Confidence Assessment

Overall: {BAR} {PERCENTAGE}%

High confidence areas:

  • {AREA} — {REASON}

Lower confidence areas:

  • {AREA} — {REASON}

Supporting Evidence

  • Code: { file paths and line ranges }
  • Docs: { references }
  • Tests: { relevant test files }
  • History: { commit SHAs if relevant }
  • External: { URLs if applicable }

Below Level 5

△ Caveats

Assumptions:

  • {ASSUMPTION} — { why necessary, impact if wrong }

Gaps:

  • {GAP} — { what's missing, how to fill }

Unknowns:

  • {UNKNOWN} — { noted for future investigation }

Load micro-skills for specialized analysis:

These provide deep-dive methodologies for specific analysis types.

Loop: Gather → Analyze → Update Confidence → Next step

  1. Calibrate starting confidence — what do we already know?
  2. Identify evidence sources — where can we look?
  3. Gather systematically — collect from multiple angles
  4. Cross-reference findings — verify patterns hold
  5. Flag uncertainties — mark gaps with △
  6. Synthesize conclusions — connect evidence to insights
  7. Deliver with confidence level — clear about certainty

At each step:

  • Document what you found (evidence)
  • Note what it means (interpretation)
  • Track what's still unclear (gaps)
  • Update confidence bar

Before concluding (level 4+):

Check evidence quality:

  • ✓ Multiple sources confirm pattern?
  • ✓ Direct observation vs inference clearly marked?
  • ✓ Assumptions explicitly flagged?
  • ✓ Counter-examples considered?

Check completeness:

  • ✓ Original question fully addressed?
  • ✓ Edge cases explored?
  • ✓ Alternative explanations ruled out?
  • ✓ Known unknowns documented?

Check deliverable:

  • ✓ Findings supported by evidence?
  • ✓ Confidence calibrated honestly?
  • ✓ Caveats section included if <100%?
  • ✓ Next steps clear if incomplete?

ALWAYS:

  • Investigate before concluding
  • Cite evidence sources with file paths/URLs
  • Use confidence bars to track certainty
  • Flag assumptions and gaps with △
  • Cross-reference from multiple angles
  • Document investigation trail
  • Distinguish fact from inference
  • Include caveats below level 5

NEVER:

  • Guess when you can investigate
  • State assumptions as facts
  • Conclude from single source
  • Hide uncertainty or gaps
  • Skip validation checks
  • Deliver without confidence assessment
  • Conflate evidence with interpretation

Core methodology:

Micro-skills (load as needed):

Local references:

Related skills:

  • pathfinding — clarifying requirements before analysis
  • debugging-and-diagnosis — structured bug investigation (loads root-cause-analysis)