# Agent Navigability > Audit a codebase for how easily a coding agent can navigate it, and propose structural fixes. Use this whenever an agent keeps re-exploring the same code, burns context finding where things live, edits the wrong file, or misses call sites it should have found; when reviewing structure, naming, module boundaries, or type usage for legibility rather than correctness; when onboarding cost is high for agents or new engineers; or when someone asks why agent runs on this repo are slow, expensive, or unreliable. Also use for requests like "restructure this for agents", "why does it keep missing files", "review our naming", or planning a refactor whose goal is comprehension rather than behaviour. Includes a migration mode for repo-wide restructuring such as separating client from server, splitting a monolith, or changing the top-level layout, which produces a phased plan rather than a findings list. - Skill: `arndvs/agent-navigability` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add arndvs/agent-navigability` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/arndvs/agent-navigability/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: arndvs (https://skillmd.com/u/arndvs) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/arndvs/agent-navigability --- # Agent navigability audit Every fresh agent session re-derives where things live. That cost is paid on every run, forever, and it scales with how many agents you run rather than how many engineers you have. A structure that's merely tolerable for a team that already knows it can be genuinely expensive for something that doesn't. The test throughout: **can an agent find the right file without reading the wrong ones?** Not "is this well designed" — a clean architecture can still be unnavigable, and a messy one can be easy to search. Legibility is a separate axis from quality, and this skill only audits legibility. Findings here are structural. If the question is about runtime output, error handling, or observability, use `logging-audit` instead — that's the behavioural half of the same problem. --- ## Step 1: Navigate it yourself first Don't read the repo and form opinions. **Attempt a real task and watch where you struggle.** Pick something plausible — "add a field to the main entity and thread it through", "find every place that writes to storage", "add an endpoint like the existing ones" — and note, concretely: - Which files you opened that turned out to be irrelevant - Where you had to guess, and what you guessed from - Searches that returned too much to be useful - Points where you couldn't tell which of several similar files was the live one That list *is* the finding set. Structural advice derived from reading a tree is generic and mostly unactionable; advice derived from a failed search is specific and obviously true once stated. If the repo is large, sample: the main entry point, one recently changed feature, and the test directory. ## Step 2: Establish the prevailing pattern Consistency beats correctness here. A repo where every module follows an unusual convention is navigable; a repo with three good conventions in different corners is not. So find what dominates before recommending anything: - Directory layout — by layer, by feature, by domain? - Where do tests live relative to source? - How are modules named, and how is a public interface distinguished? - Is there existing agent-facing documentation (`CLAUDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `.cursor/rules`, `README` per package)? Then audit for **deviation from the dominant pattern**, not deviation from an ideal. Recommending a restructure that fights the codebase's own grain produces a PR nobody merges. Load `references/checklist.md` for the specific structural properties to check. --- ## Step 3: What to look for Ordered by how much agent time each wastes. ### High cost **Unsearchable names.** The single highest-leverage finding. A name earns its keep if grepping it returns roughly the places that matter. `Data`, `Manager`, `Handler`, `Item`, `process`, `util`, `helper`, `Request`, `Response` fail this — searching returns hundreds of unrelated hits, so the agent falls back to reading files. Specific, verbose names are navigational infrastructure: `InvoiceLineItem` finds its own call sites; `Item` cannot. Weight this by how central the name is. A badly named local variable costs nothing; a badly named core type costs on every run that touches it. **No obvious entry point.** An agent should be able to identify where a service starts in one look. Flag: no `main`/`index`/`app` at a predictable path, several plausible candidates with nothing distinguishing the live one, or startup logic buried in a file named for something else. **Untyped data crossing boundaries.** Dicts, `any`, bare JSON, or stringly-typed payloads passed between modules erase the trail. A named type is followable — grep it and you get the full path from producer to consumer. An anonymous dict has to be reconstructed by reading every hop. Applies to classes, interfaces, structs, enums, and named exceptions equally. **Duplicate or ambiguous authority.** Two files that could plausibly own the same behaviour: `utils.py` and `helpers.py`, `config.ts` and `settings.ts`, a `v2` directory alongside the original with no indication which is live. The agent picks one, sometimes the dead one, and the edit silently does nothing. **Files too large to load selectively.** A 3,000-line module forces an all-or- nothing context decision. Rough ceiling around 1,000 lines, applied with judgment — generated code, migrations, and lock files don't count, and a cohesive long file beats five arbitrary fragments. Flag when the file has clearly accumulated unrelated responsibilities, not merely when it's long. ### Worth fixing **Tests that don't mirror source.** When `src/core/parser.ts` has its test at a predictable path, an agent finds and extends it without searching. When tests are organised by type, or by who wrote them, or not at all, it either searches or — worse — writes a duplicate test in the wrong place. **Magic values inline.** Literals scattered through the code instead of a named constant. Costs on every change: the agent has to find all of them, and it will miss some. A named constant makes the search exact. **Missing local documentation.** A root `README` doesn't help an agent working three directories down. A short `CLAUDE.md` or `AGENTS.md` in a subsystem — what it does, what to touch, what not to — is read exactly when relevant and costs nothing otherwise. Recommend these for subsystems with non-obvious constraints, not for every directory; noise here has the same cost as noise anywhere. **Undiscoverable commands.** How to run, test, and lint should be in one predictable place. If it's spread across a README, a CI config, and tribal knowledge, every session rediscovers it — usually by reading the CI config, which is expensive and often wrong for local use. **Inconsistent layering.** Some features organised by layer, others by domain. Each requires a different search strategy, and the agent can't tell which applies until it's already looked. ### Lower priority **Deep nesting.** Long paths cost tokens and make partial matches ambiguous. Real but minor; only raise it alongside something else. **Dead code.** Unreferenced files and legacy paths are read, considered, and sometimes edited. Worth flagging when concentrated, not worth a sweep. --- ## Step 4: Report Lead with what it costs, not what it violates. ``` ### High cost **`src/models.py`** — `QueryRequest`, `DataResponse`, and `Item` appear 340 times across the repo; searching any of them returns most of the codebase, so tracing a field means reading files rather than grepping. Rename to what they carry: `SqlQueryRequest`, `TableSchemaResponse`, `InvoiceLineItem`. Mechanical, and it makes every future search exact. ### Worth fixing **`app/server/` vs `app/api/`** — both define route handlers; nothing indicates which is live. An agent editing endpoints has a coin flip. Consolidate, or leave a one-line `CLAUDE.md` in the dead one saying so. ``` Every finding needs a location, the concrete cost, and a fix. "This violates single responsibility" is not a finding. "An agent adding a field here must read four files to know which one is authoritative" is. **Sequence the recommendations.** Structural changes have wildly different costs — renaming a type is a mechanical refactor with test coverage; splitting a module is a design decision with merge-conflict fallout. Put the cheap high-yield changes first and say plainly which ones aren't worth doing now. If the repo is already navigable, say so. Restructuring for its own sake costs review time and breaks people's mental maps, and a skill that always finds problems teaches people to stop running it. --- ## Migration mode Some findings are too large for the incremental path: separating client from server, splitting a monolith into services, moving from layer-based to feature-based layout. These touch every import in the repo. They can't be proposed as a routine finding — an audit that files "reorganise your top-level directories" alongside three renames gets the whole batch declined. Switch to this mode when the structural problem is repo-wide rather than local, or when someone explicitly asks about restructuring. The output is not findings — it's a phased plan a human accepts once. **Establish the payoff first, concretely.** The client/server case is the clean example: with the split, an agent working on either half can ignore the other, so roughly half the search space disappears on every run forever. State the equivalent for the proposed split. If it can't be stated, the migration is refactoring for its own sake and should be declined here rather than after the work starts. **Phase by reversibility, not by area.** Order the work so each phase lands independently and leaves the repo working: 1. Mechanical, test-covered moves — renames, file relocations with import updates 2. Boundary introduction — a types module, an interface layer, an explicit seam between the halves, with both sides still in place 3. The split itself, once the seam exists and is exercised 4. Cleanup — dead paths, now-redundant indirection Phases one and two carry almost no risk and deliver most of the navigability benefit. That ordering matters more than the destination, because a migration that stalls after phase two has still improved things, whereas one that stalls mid-split leaves the repo worse than when it started. **State what breaks.** Open PRs will conflict; anything referencing moved paths from outside the repo will break. Name these, and name the window where merge pain is lowest. **Give a stop condition.** Migrations that lose their sponsor halfway are the common failure. Say which phase is the minimum worth doing, so a partial migration is a decision rather than an abandonment. ## A note on what this can't fix Navigability improvements compound but don't substitute. A perfectly organised repo still leaves an agent re-deriving structure each session — the fix for that is a priming command or an `AGENTS.md`, not more refactoring. See `references/orientation-assets.md`. Recommend those alongside structural fixes, and prefer them when the structural change is expensive. A file that documents where things live is dramatically cheaper than moving them, and often buys most of the same benefit. They stop being enough when the problem is ambiguity rather than ignorance. A document can say where things live; it can't make two files that plausibly own the same behaviour distinguishable, and it can't make an overloaded name searchable.