andurilcode Context Gap Analyzer
Code is necessary but insufficient context. The delta between "what the code says" and "what a competent team member knows" is where agents fail most expensively. Identify that delta, prioritize by agent impact, surface focused questions a human can answer.
What agents cannot derive from code: Why (rationale), What conventions aren't enforced by tooling, How things interact beyond repo boundaries, When to break vs. follow a pattern, Who owns what.
PHASE 1 — Context Harness Discovery
Discover all context infrastructure already in place. Actively explore — don't rely on a checklist.
Layer 1: File-level — Scan repo root + 2-3 levels deep for "instructions for someone working here." For each: read it, inventory topics, note scope (repo/dir/module), format, audience.
Layer 2: Toolchain — MCP servers, skills/plugins, hooks/middleware (git hooks, CI, pre-commit, linting), IDE/editor configs.
Layer 3: Runtime — Connected services (Drive, Notion, Confluence, Slack), env/secrets, package metadata.
Layer 4: Delivery classification
| Delivery | Examples | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Static | AGENTS.md, .cursorrules, system prompts |
Token cost; must be concise |
| On-demand | MCP servers, search, skill files | Richer; agent must know when to fetch |
| Triggered | Git hooks, CI checks, pre-commit | Enforcement without why |
| Implicit | Types, tests, linter configs | Partial; rationale missing |
Output: inventory of static files (path, topics, scope, format), toolchain context (MCP, skills, hooks), runtime context (services, config injection), delivery map with counts, already-documented topics, primary delivery format (determines Phase 6 output).
Be thorough before concluding "nothing exists" — .eslintrc, Makefile, docker-compose.yml are all context. Question is sufficiency.
PHASE 2 — Codebase Topology Scan
Map: directory structure (modules, depth), technology fingerprint (languages, frameworks, build tools), complexity indicators (file counts, nesting, config variety), integration surface (external services, APIs, DBs, queues), entry points (routes, CLI, event handlers).
Output: codebase type, languages, framework, top-level modules ranked by complexity, integration surface, high-traffic areas for agents.
PHASE 3 — Gap Analysis
Cross-reference Phase 1 (documented) against Phase 2 (code). Evaluate nine categories:
| Cat | Name | Agent needs | Gap indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Architecture & Boundaries | Component topology, data flow, module dependency rules | Cross-boundary imports, code in wrong module |
| C2 | Domain Model & Business Rules | Logic rationale, vocabulary, invariants | Technically correct but domain-wrong code |
| C3 | Conventions & Patterns | Naming, file org, error handling, logging | Code that works but "feels wrong" |
| C4 | Integration & External Deps | API patterns, retry/fallback, rate limits, auth | Incorrect service calls, missing retry |
| C5 | Operations & Deployment | CI/CD, feature flags, rollback, monitoring | Code that breaks CI, unmonitored failures |
| C6 | Testing Philosophy | Unit vs. integration, mocking, fixtures | Wrong test type, mocks at wrong boundaries |
| C7 | Security Model | Auth patterns, data classification, secrets | Auth bypasses, logged sensitive data |
| C8 | Performance Constraints | Bottlenecks, caching, query patterns, pagination | N+1 queries, skipped caching, unbounded queries |
| C9 | Historical Decisions & Debt | Why this way, migrations, deprecated patterns | Extending deprecated, building on doomed code |
Scoring
| Factor | Range | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Documentation coverage | 0-3 | 0=nothing, 1=mentioned, 2=partial, 3=thorough |
| Code complexity | 1-3 | 1=simple, 2=moderate, 3=complex/non-obvious |
| Agent exposure | 1-3 | 1=rarely touched, 2=sometimes, 3=frequently modified |
Gap severity = Complexity x Exposure - Doc coverage (range: -2 to 9)
| Score | Priority |
|---|---|
| >= 5 | Critical |
| 3-4 | Significant |
| <= 2 | Acceptable |
Output: table with all 9 categories scored, overall coverage % (Doc sum / 27 x 100), critical gaps listed.
PHASE 4 — Prioritized Question Generation
For each gap >= 3, generate focused questions answerable in 2-5 minutes. Each targets one piece of implicit knowledge; the answer must be directly usable as agent context.
Q[N] — [Category] — Priority: [Critical/High/Medium]
[Specific, focused question]
Why this matters: [what goes wrong without this context]
Good answer example: [3-5 sentence template showing detail level]
Generate 10-20 questions. At least 2 per critical gap, 1 per significant gap. Order by gap severity x actionability.
PHASE 5 — Coverage Map
CONTEXT COVERAGE MAP — [repo] — [date]
C1 Architecture [████░░░░░░] 40% ⚠️ Significant
C2 Domain Model [█░░░░░░░░░] 10% 🔴 Critical
...
OVERALL: [X]% | Questions: [N] | Est. time to close critical gaps: ~[N] min
Use interactive visualization (radar, heatmap) when supported.
PHASE 6 — Tracking & Integration
Create .context-coverage.json at repo root with: version, repo, dates, harness info (primary format, static sources, toolchain, delivery summary), per-category scores, questions (id, category, priority, question, status, answer, integrated_to), overall coverage.
When the user answers a question:
- Store answer, mark
"answered" - Write into the harness matching existing conventions (tone, structure, format, scope)
- Record
integrated_topath, recalculate coverage, show updated map
Integration principle: Adapt to the harness, never prescribe. Match existing voice and format. If no writable harness exists, ask where to write.
Incremental Modes
- First run: Full Phases 1-6, baseline + all questions
- Answer session: Integrate answers, update coverage
- Re-audit: Re-run Phases 2-5 after significant changes
- Coverage check: Phase 5 only from existing
.context-coverage.json
Detect mode from whether .context-coverage.json exists and what the user asks.
Calibration
- Agent-first: Frame every question as "what would an agent get wrong?" not "what's undocumented?"
- Precision over completeness: 10 high-impact questions beat 50 thorough ones. Human time is the bottleneck.
- Respect existing context: Cross-reference before asking — don't duplicate.
- Harness humility: Detect and work within existing systems. Don't prescribe.
- Actionable answers: The example answer prevents both one-word and novel-length responses.
- Coverage honesty: Score based on what an agent would find useful, not what technically exists.