ask-matt
무료Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Run comprehensive agent-native architecture review with scored principles
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
실행 점수 미검증
설치 방법 보기설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
Conduct a comprehensive review of the codebase against agent-native architecture principles, launching parallel sub-agents for each principle and producing a scored report.
First, invoke the agent-native-architecture skill to understand all principles:
/ce-agent-native-architecture
Select option 7 (action parity) to load the full reference material.
Launch 8 parallel sub-agents using the platform's subagent primitive (Agent with subagent_type: Explore in Claude Code, spawn_agent with agent_type: "explorer" in Codex, subagent with agent: "scout" in Pi via the pi-subagents extension), one for each principle. Each agent should:
Agent 1: Action Parity
Audit for ACTION PARITY - "Whatever the user can do, the agent can do."
Tasks:
1. Enumerate ALL user actions in frontend (API calls, button clicks, form submissions)
- Search for API service files, fetch calls, form handlers
- Check routes and components for user interactions
2. Check which have corresponding agent tools
- Search for agent tool definitions
- Map user actions to agent capabilities
3. Score: "Agent can do X out of Y user actions"
Format:
## Action Parity Audit
### User Actions Found
| Action | Location | Agent Tool | Status |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Missing Agent Tools
### Recommendations
Agent 2: Tools as Primitives
Audit for TOOLS AS PRIMITIVES - "Tools provide capability, not behavior."
Tasks:
1. Find and read ALL agent tool files
2. Classify each as:
- PRIMITIVE (good): read, write, store, list - enables capability without business logic
- WORKFLOW (bad): encodes business logic, makes decisions, orchestrates steps
3. Score: "X out of Y tools are proper primitives"
Format:
## Tools as Primitives Audit
### Tool Analysis
| Tool | File | Type | Reasoning |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Problematic Tools (workflows that should be primitives)
### Recommendations
Agent 3: Context Injection
Audit for CONTEXT INJECTION - "System prompt includes dynamic context about app state"
Tasks:
1. Find context injection code (search for "context", "system prompt", "inject")
2. Read agent prompts and system messages
3. Enumerate what IS injected vs what SHOULD be:
- Available resources (files, drafts, documents)
- User preferences/settings
- Recent activity
- Available capabilities listed
- Session history
- Workspace state
Format:
## Context Injection Audit
### Context Types Analysis
| Context Type | Injected? | Location | Notes |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Missing Context
### Recommendations
Agent 4: Shared Workspace
Audit for SHARED WORKSPACE - "Agent and user work in the same data space"
Tasks:
1. Identify all data stores/tables/models
2. Check if agents read/write to SAME tables or separate ones
3. Look for sandbox isolation anti-pattern (agent has separate data space)
Format:
## Shared Workspace Audit
### Data Store Analysis
| Data Store | User Access | Agent Access | Shared? |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Isolated Data (anti-pattern)
### Recommendations
Agent 5: CRUD Completeness
Audit for CRUD COMPLETENESS - "Every entity has full CRUD"
Tasks:
1. Identify all entities/models in the codebase
2. For each entity, check if agent tools exist for:
- Create
- Read
- Update
- Delete
3. Score per entity and overall
Format:
## CRUD Completeness Audit
### Entity CRUD Analysis
| Entity | Create | Read | Update | Delete | Score |
### Overall Score: X/Y entities with full CRUD (percentage%)
### Incomplete Entities (list missing operations)
### Recommendations
Agent 6: UI Integration
Audit for UI INTEGRATION - "Agent actions immediately reflected in UI"
Tasks:
1. Check how agent writes/changes propagate to frontend
2. Look for:
- Streaming updates (SSE, WebSocket)
- Polling mechanisms
- Shared state/services
- Event buses
- File watching
3. Identify "silent actions" anti-pattern (agent changes state but UI doesn't update)
Format:
## UI Integration Audit
### Agent Action → UI Update Analysis
| Agent Action | UI Mechanism | Immediate? | Notes |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Silent Actions (anti-pattern)
### Recommendations
Agent 7: Capability Discovery
Audit for CAPABILITY DISCOVERY - "Users can discover what the agent can do"
Tasks:
1. Check for these 7 discovery mechanisms:
- Onboarding flow showing agent capabilities
- Help documentation
- Capability hints in UI
- Agent self-describes in responses
- Suggested prompts/actions
- Empty state guidance
- Slash commands (/help, /tools)
2. Score against 7 mechanisms
Format:
## Capability Discovery Audit
### Discovery Mechanism Analysis
| Mechanism | Exists? | Location | Quality |
### Score: X/7 (percentage%)
### Missing Discovery
### Recommendations
Agent 8: Prompt-Native Features
Audit for PROMPT-NATIVE FEATURES - "Features are prompts defining outcomes, not code"
Tasks:
1. Read all agent prompts
2. Classify each feature/behavior as defined in:
- PROMPT (good): outcomes defined in natural language
- CODE (bad): business logic hardcoded
3. Check if behavior changes require prompt edit vs code change
Format:
## Prompt-Native Features Audit
### Feature Definition Analysis
| Feature | Defined In | Type | Notes |
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Code-Defined Features (anti-pattern)
### Recommendations
</sub-agents>
After all agents complete, compile a summary with:
## Agent-Native Architecture Review: [Project Name]
### Overall Score Summary
| Core Principle | Score | Percentage | Status |
|----------------|-------|------------|--------|
| Action Parity | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Tools as Primitives | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Context Injection | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Shared Workspace | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| CRUD Completeness | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| UI Integration | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Capability Discovery | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Prompt-Native Features | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
**Overall Agent-Native Score: X%**
### Status Legend
- ✅ Excellent (80%+)
- ⚠️ Partial (50-79%)
- ❌ Needs Work (<50%)
### Top 10 Recommendations by Impact
| Priority | Action | Principle | Effort |
|----------|--------|-----------|--------|
### What's Working Excellently
[List top 5 strengths]
If $ARGUMENTS specifies a single principle (e.g., "action parity"), only run that sub-agent and provide detailed findings for that principle alone.
Valid arguments:
action parity or 1tools or primitives or 2context or injection or 3shared or workspace or 4crud or 5ui or integration or 6discovery or 7prompt or features or 8아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
Ask which skill or flow fits your situation. A router over the skills in this repo.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Build applications where agents are first-class citizens. Use this skill when designing autonomous agents, creating MCP tools, implementing self-modifying systems, or building apps where features are outcomes achieved by agents operating in a loop.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Explore requirements and approaches through collaborative dialogue before writing a right-sized requirements document and planning implementation. Use for feature ideas, problem framing, when the user says 'let's brainstorm', or when they want to think through options before deciding what to build. Also use when a user describes a vague or ambitious feature request, asks 'what should we build', 'help me think through X', presents a problem with multiple valid solutions, or seems unsure about scope or direction — even if they don't explicitly ask to brainstorm.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Clean up local branches whose remote tracking branch is gone. Use when the user says "clean up branches", "delete gone branches", "prune local branches", "clean gone", or wants to remove stale local branches that no longer exist on the remote. Also handles removing associated worktrees for branches that have them.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Structured code review using tiered persona agents, confidence-gated findings, and a merge/dedup pipeline. Use when reviewing code changes before creating a PR.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Create a git commit with a clear, value-communicating message. Use when the user says "commit", "commit this", "save my changes", "create a commit", or wants to commit staged or unstaged work. Produces well-structured commit messages that follow repo conventions when they exist, and defaults to conventional commit format otherwise.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.