Assessment Skill

Seven modes for read-only analysis and decision support. Match the request to a mode, then follow that mode's phases.

Mode Selection

Request pattern	Mode
Inspect, browse, explore without changing	Read-Only Inspection
Onboard, overview, summarize repo, codebase structure	Codebase Overview
Repo value analysis, compare repos, what can we learn	Repo Value Analysis
Service status, health check, uptime, validate endpoints	Service Health Check
Consult on ADR, challenge design, architecture consultation	ADR Consultation
Help me decide, decision matrix, pros/cons, trade-offs	Decision Scoring
Critique ideas, devil's advocate, stress test, roast	Multi-Persona Critique

Final report. When the report synthesizes two or more dispatched agents' outputs (Repo Value Analysis, ADR Consultation, Multi-Persona Critique, Codebase Overview deep-dives), run one self-review pass on the draft before delivery: skills/shared-patterns/report-self-review.md (separate dispatch, model: opus).

---

Read-Only Inspection

Safe exploration without modifying files or system state.

Phase 1: SCOPE

Parse the request. Determine target scope (file, directory, service, system-wide). Clarify before proceeding if scope could match dozens of results.

Phase 2: GATHER

Use read-only tools only.

Allowed: ls, find, wc, du, df, file, stat, ps, top -bn1, uptime, free, pgrep, git status/log/diff/show/branch, sqlite3 "SELECT ...", curl -s (GET only), date, env.

Forbidden: mkdir, rm, mv, cp, touch, chmod, chown, git add/commit/push, file writes, INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DROP, npm/pip/apt install, kill, systemctl restart.

Phase 3: REPORT

Lead with the answer. Show supporting evidence. List files examined. All claims must cite evidence.

---

Codebase Overview

4-phase exploration producing an evidence-backed onboarding report. Read-only.

Read any .claude/CLAUDE.md or CLAUDE.md in the repo root first. Skip sensitive files (.env, *.pem, *.key, credentials) silently.

Phase 1: DETECT

Examine root directory. Identify project type from config files (package.json, go.mod, pyproject.toml, pom.xml, Cargo.toml). Document: language, framework, build system, dependencies. Load references/codebase-overview/exploration-strategies.md for language-specific discovery commands.

Gate: Project type identified. Tech stack documented.

Phase 2: EXPLORE

Discover entry points, core modules, data models, API surfaces, configuration, tests. Limit 20 files per category. Map directory structure (exclude node_modules/, venv/, vendor/, dist/, build/, __pycache__/).

Gate: Entry points, core modules, data layer, API surface, config, tests documented.

Phase 3: MAP

Identify design patterns with file evidence. Map 5-10 key abstractions. Trace a typical request through the full stack. Analyze last 10 commits. All paths absolute. All claims cite source files.

Gate: Patterns identified, abstractions mapped, data flow documented.

Phase 4: SUMMARIZE

Generate report using references/codebase-overview/report-template.md. Include "Where to Add New Code" section. Run post-exploration secret scan.

For deep-dive mode ("full picture"), launch 4 parallel domain agents via Task. See references/codebase-overview/examples-and-errors.md for dispatch template.

Scripts: scripts/cartographer.py (quick), scripts/cartographer_omni.py (100-metric), scripts/cartographer_ultimate.py (focused performance).

---

Repo Value Analysis

6-phase pipeline analyzing external repositories for adoptable ideas.

Phase 1: CLONE

Parse input (GitHub URL, local path, org/repo). git clone --depth 1. Categorize files into zones (skills, agents, hooks, docs, tests, config, code, other). Cap zones at ~100 files.

Phase 2: DEEP-READ (parallel)

Dispatch 1 Agent per zone (up to 8). Each reads EVERY file and produces: component inventory, key techniques, notable patterns, gaps. Output to /tmp/[REPO]-zone-[zone].md.

Gate: 75%+ agents returned.

Phase 3: INVENTORY (parallel with Phase 2)

Dispatch 1 Agent to catalog vexjoy-agent repo: agents, skills, hooks, scripts with counts. Output to /tmp/self-inventory.md.

Phase 4: SYNTHESIZE

Read all zone findings and inventory. Build comparison table. Rate gaps: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW. Save draft to research-[REPO]-comparison.md.

Phase 5: AUDIT (parallel)

For each HIGH/MEDIUM recommendation, dispatch 1 audit Agent to verify: ALREADY EXISTS, PARTIAL, or MISSING. Skip with --quick.

Phase 6: REPORT

Adjust recommendations from audit. Write final report: executive summary, comparison table, already-covered, recommendations, verdict, next steps. Clean /tmp/ files. Load references/repo-value-analysis/phase7-implement-template.md for implementation dispatch. Self-review the draft before it ships (see Final report above).

---

Service Health Check

Deterministic service monitoring: Discover-Check-Report. Never report healthy without verifying process status independently.

Phase 1: DISCOVER

Locate service definitions: services.json, docker-compose, systemd units, or user input. Build manifest: process pattern, health file, port, stale threshold per service.

Phase 2: CHECK

Per service: (1) pgrep -f "<pattern>" for process status, (2) parse health file JSON for staleness/status/connections, (3) ss -tlnp "sport = :<port>" for port.

Condition	Status
Process not running	DOWN
Running + health file missing/stale	WARNING
Running + status=error	ERROR
Running + disconnected >30min	WARNING
Running + port not listening	ERROR
Running + healthy	HEALTHY

Gate: All services evaluated with evidence.

Phase 3: REPORT

Output summary (X/N healthy), highlight services needing action, provide copy-pasteable remediation. Never auto-restart without explicit flag.

For endpoint validation, load references/service-health-check/endpoint-validator.md. For CVE source auditing, load references/service-health-check/cve-source-check.md.

---

ADR Consultation

3-agent parallel architecture consultation producing PROCEED or BLOCKED.

Phase 1: DISCOVER

Locate ADR (user path, .adr-session.json, or ask). Validate via adr-query.py. Read full ADR. Create adr/{adr-name}/ directory.

Gate: ADR read, path validated, consultation directory created.

Phase 2: DISPATCH (parallel)

Launch all 3 agents in ONE message. Load references/adr-consultation/agent-prompts.md for prompt templates:

1. Contrarian (reviewer-perspectives): challenge assumptions, simpler alternatives
2. User advocate (reviewer-perspectives): user impact, cognitive load
3. Meta-process (reviewer-perspectives): system health, coupling, SPOF

For complex decisions, add 2 more agents (see agent-prompts.md).

Gate: All agents returned and wrote to adr/{adr-name}/.

Phase 3: SYNTHESIZE

Read agent files from disk. Extract concerns to adr/{adr-name}/concerns.md. Determine verdict: all PROCEED = strong consensus, any BLOCK = hard block, mixed = significant concerns. Write adr/{adr-name}/synthesis.md. Issue verdict per references/adr-consultation/consultation-patterns.md. Self-review the synthesis before issuing it (see Final report above).

---

Decision Scoring

Weighted scoring for 2-4 options. Runs inline (no fork).

Step 1: Frame

State decision in one sentence. List 2-4 options. Eliminate non-starters first.

Step 2: Criteria

Default weights (adjust per domain -- load references/decision-helper/decision-archetypes.md for build-vs-buy, database, cloud, framework, API, or operational tooling):

Criterion	Weight	Measures
Correctness	5	Solves the actual problem
Complexity	3	Added complexity (lower = better)
Maintainability	3	Ease of change/debug
Risk	3	Failure mode severity
Effort	2	Implementation time
Familiarity	2	Team comfort
Ecosystem	1	Library/community support

Lock weights before scoring. Do not adjust after seeing results.

Step 3: Score

Rate each option 1-10 per criterion with one-sentence justification. Calculate sum(score * weight) / sum(weights).

Step 4: Analyze

All scores <6.0: no good option -- explore alternatives. Top two within 0.5: close call -- identify deciding criteria. Top leads by >0.5: recommend winner. If matrix contradicts intuition, ask which criterion is missing.

Step 5: Persist

Append to active ADR session (.adr-session.json) or task plan.

---

Multi-Persona Critique

5-persona parallel critique with consensus synthesis.

Phase 1: UNDERSTAND

Extract or generate numbered proposals. Each: what it does, why it matters, how it differs from status quo (2-4 sentences). Research domain first if generating.

Phase 2: BRIEF

Load references/multi-persona-critique/personas.md. Build prompts for 5 personas, each receiving ALL proposals:

1. The Logician: coherence, assumptions, falsifiability
2. The Pragmatic Builder: build cost, maintenance, simpler alternatives
3. The Systems Purist: accidental complexity, separation of concerns
4. The End User Advocate: friction, delight, solved-problem test
5. The Skeptical Philosopher: human agency, dependency risk

Each produces: STRONG/PROMISING/WEAK/REJECT per proposal, ranked list, cross-cutting observations.

Phase 3: DISPATCH (parallel)

Launch all 5 via Agent. Wait for ALL to complete.

Phase 4: SYNTHESIZE

Build consensus matrix (proposals x personas x ratings). Classify: CONSENSUS (4+ agree), CONTESTED (2-3 split), OUTLIER (1 vs 4). Score: STRONG=3, PROMISING=2, WEAK=1, REJECT=0. Sum per proposal (0-15).

Phase 5: PRESENT

Generate report using references/multi-persona-critique/synthesis-template.md: consensus matrix, features to build, worth investigating, disagreements, shelve, cross-cutting insights. Self-review the draft before presenting it (see Final report above).

For roast-style code critique with HN personas and file:line validation, load references/multi-persona-critique/roast.md.

---

Deep References

Load on demand when the corresponding phase needs detailed lookup data.

Context	Reference	Content
Codebase overview: language commands	references/codebase-overview/exploration-strategies.md	Per-language discovery commands
Codebase overview: report format	references/codebase-overview/report-template.md	12-section report template
Codebase overview: deep-dive dispatch	references/codebase-overview/examples-and-errors.md	Parallel agent template, worked examples
Codebase overview: statistical lenses	references/codebase-overview/statistical-three-lenses.md	Three-lens statistical analysis
Codebase overview: metrics catalog	references/codebase-overview/statistical-metrics-catalog.md	100-metric catalog
Codebase overview: statistical phases	references/codebase-overview/statistical-phase-details.md	Phase banners and workflows
Codebase overview: statistical examples	references/codebase-overview/statistical-analysis-examples.md	Real-world statistical workflows
Value analysis: implementation	references/repo-value-analysis/phase7-implement-template.md	Agent dispatch template
Health check: endpoint validation	references/service-health-check/endpoint-validator.md	Full endpoint validation methodology
Health check: security headers	references/service-health-check/security-headers.md	HSTS, CSP reference
Health check: endpoint config	references/service-health-check/endpoint-config-preferred-patterns.md	Config patterns
Health check: auth endpoints	references/service-health-check/auth-endpoint-patterns.md	Auth endpoint patterns
Health check: CVE sources	references/service-health-check/cve-source-check.md	CVE source check methodology
ADR: agent prompts	references/adr-consultation/agent-prompts.md	3-agent prompt templates
ADR: artifact patterns	references/adr-consultation/consultation-patterns.md	Verdict display, artifact templates
ADR: failure modes	references/adr-consultation/consultation-preferred-patterns.md	Dispatch and verdict fixes
ADR: error recovery	references/adr-consultation/error-handling.md	Error recovery by phase
Decision: archetypes	references/decision-helper/decision-archetypes.md	Archetype-specific criteria weights
Decision: failure modes	references/decision-helper/decision-preferred-patterns.md	Scoring discipline patterns
Critique: personas	references/multi-persona-critique/personas.md	5 persona specifications
Critique: synthesis	references/multi-persona-critique/synthesis-template.md	Consensus matrix and report
Critique: examples	references/multi-persona-critique/examples-and-errors.md	Worked examples, failure modes
Critique: roast mode	references/multi-persona-critique/roast.md	HN persona evidence-based critique