Codebase analysis
Universal AI development toolkit. 74 production-ready skills for every coding agent. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, Codex.
npx -y skills add medy-gribkov/arcana --skill codebase-analysisAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Systematic codebase analysis and pre-production review. 4-phase dissection, 8-domain health scoring, architecture mapping, dead code detection, remediation planning. Use when auditing or onboarding to any codebase.
SKILL.md
7.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
You are a codebase analyst. Perform systematic, evidence-based analysis. Never guess. Always cite file:line. Score findings by severity and effort. Output actionable remediation plans.
When to Use
- Onboarding to an unfamiliar codebase
- Pre-production quality review
- Architecture audit or tech debt assessment
- Dead code detection and cleanup planning
- Security or performance review of existing systems
4-Phase Dissection Process
Phase 1: Structural Mapping
# 1. Project identity
cat package.json # or go.mod, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml
git log --oneline -20
git shortlog -sn --no-merges | head -10
# 2. Entry points
grep -r "func main\|app.listen\|createServer\|if __name__" --include="*.go" --include="*.ts" --include="*.py" -l
# 3. Directory structure (depth 3)
find . -type f -not -path '*/node_modules/*' -not -path '*/.git/*' | head -200
Output a structural map:
project-name/
├── cmd/ → Entry points (2 binaries)
├── internal/ → Business logic (12 packages)
├── api/ → HTTP handlers (REST, 3 routes)
├── migrations/ → DB schema (PostgreSQL, 8 migrations)
└── tests/ → Integration tests (47 files)
Phase 2: Data Layer Analysis
Trace data from input to storage:
HTTP Request → Handler → Service → Repository → Database
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Validate Transform Business Query Schema
(dto.go) (mapper.go) (svc.go) (repo.go) (001.sql)
BAD - Data flow with no validation boundary:
func CreateUser(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
var user User
json.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(&user)
db.Create(&user) // Raw input straight to DB
}
GOOD - Clear validation boundary:
func CreateUser(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
var dto CreateUserDTO
if err := json.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(&dto); err != nil {
http.Error(w, "invalid JSON", http.StatusBadRequest)
return
}
if err := dto.Validate(); err != nil {
http.Error(w, err.Error(), http.StatusUnprocessableEntity)
return
}
user := dto.ToUser() // Explicit mapping
if err := svc.CreateUser(r.Context(), user); err != nil {
http.Error(w, "internal error", http.StatusInternalServerError)
return
}
}
Phase 3: Logic & Flow Analysis
Check each concern:
Concurrency:
// BAD - shared map without mutex
var cache = map[string]string{}
func Get(key string) string { return cache[key] } // race condition
// GOOD - sync.Map or mutex
var cache sync.Map
func Get(key string) (string, bool) {
v, ok := cache.Load(key)
if !ok { return "", false }
return v.(string), true
}
Error handling:
// BAD - swallowed errors
result, _ := doSomething()
// GOOD - every error handled or explicitly ignored with comment
result, err := doSomething()
if err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("do something: %w", err)
}
Dead code detection:
# Go: find unreferenced exports
grep -rn "^func [A-Z]" --include="*.go" | while read line; do
func_name=$(echo "$line" | grep -oP 'func \K[A-Z]\w+')
count=$(grep -rn "$func_name" --include="*.go" | wc -l)
if [ "$count" -le 1 ]; then echo "UNUSED: $line"; fi
done
# TypeScript: find unused exports
npx ts-prune
Phase 4: Remediation Planning
Score each finding: severity (1-5) × effort_to_fix (1-5)
| Priority | Score | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | 20-25 | Fix before ship |
| High | 12-19 | Fix this sprint |
| Medium | 6-11 | Backlog |
| Low | 1-5 | Tech debt tracker |
8-Domain Health Scoring
Score each domain 0-100. Overall health = weighted average.
| Domain | Weight | What to Check |
|---|---|---|
| Security | 20% | OWASP Top 10, secrets in code, auth patterns |
| Data | 15% | Schema design, migrations, query performance |
| Backend | 15% | Error handling, concurrency, API design |
| External Services | 10% | Timeout config, retry logic, circuit breakers |
| Frontend | 10% | Bundle size, accessibility, state management |
| Infrastructure | 10% | Docker, CI/CD, env config, health checks |
| Performance | 10% | N+1 queries, missing indexes, memory leaks |
| Quality | 10% | Test coverage, lint config, type safety |
Health Score Formula
domain_score = 100 - (critical_findings × 20) - (high_findings × 10) - (medium_findings × 3)
overall_score = Σ(domain_score × domain_weight)
BAD - Vague report:
The codebase has some security issues and could use more tests.
GOOD - Quantified report:
Health Score: 62/100
Security (45/100):
- CRITICAL: SQL injection in api/users.go:47 (raw string concat)
- HIGH: JWT secret hardcoded in config/auth.go:12
- MEDIUM: No rate limiting on /api/login endpoint
Data (78/100):
- HIGH: Missing index on users.email (used in WHERE, 2M rows)
- MEDIUM: No down migration for 005_add_roles.sql
Cross-Domain Pattern Detection
Look for patterns that span multiple domains:
- Auth bypass chain: Missing middleware on one route + IDOR in handler = privilege escalation
- Data leak chain: Verbose error messages + missing field filtering = PII exposure
- Performance chain: N+1 queries + no caching + no pagination = cascading slowdown
Report Template
# Codebase Analysis: [project-name]
## Summary
- Health Score: XX/100
- Critical Findings: N
- Files Analyzed: N
- Test Coverage: XX%
## Domain Scores
| Domain | Score | Critical | High | Medium |
|--------|-------|----------|------|--------|
| Security | XX | N | N | N |
| ...
## Critical Findings
### [CRIT-001] SQL Injection in User Search
- **File:** api/users.go:47
- **Impact:** Full database access
- **Fix:** Use parameterized query
- **Effort:** 1 hour
## Remediation Phases
### Phase 1 (This Week): Critical Security
- [ ] Fix SQL injection (CRIT-001)
- [ ] Rotate hardcoded JWT secret (CRIT-002)
### Phase 2 (This Sprint): High Priority
- [ ] Add missing indexes (HIGH-001)
- [ ] Implement rate limiting (HIGH-002)
### Phase 3 (Backlog): Medium Priority
- [ ] Add down migrations
- [ ] Increase test coverage to 80%
Language-Specific Checklists
Go
- All errors handled (no
_on error returns) - Context propagation through call chain
- Graceful shutdown with signal handling
- No goroutine leaks (check with
runtime.NumGoroutine())
TypeScript/Node.js
- Strict mode enabled (
"strict": true) - No
anytypes (useunknown+ type guards) - Async errors caught (no unhandled promise rejections)
- Dependencies audited (
npm audit)
Python
- Type hints on public functions
- No bare
except:clauses - Virtual environment configured
- Dependencies pinned with hashes
Parallel Analysis Strategy
Run 4 agents in parallel for large codebases:
Agent 1: Structural mapping + entry points
Agent 2: Security domain (OWASP scan, secrets, auth)
Agent 3: Data domain (schema, queries, migrations)
Agent 4: Quality domain (tests, coverage, dead code)
Merge results into single report with unified scoring.