ckorhonen SWE Repo Introspection
What This Skill Does
Use this skill to help an engineer or agent become productive in an unfamiliar codebase without guessing.
The report should explain:
- How the repository is organized
- How it is likely operated
- Where the important boundaries are
- Which surfaces look safest to touch next
When To Use
Use this skill when the user wants to:
- Understand an unfamiliar repository before editing it
- Prepare for delegation or planning
- Map tooling, entry points, and boundaries
- Find safe starting surfaces for follow-on work
Do Not Use
Do not use this skill for:
- Implementing a known change request
- Debugging one specific defect
- Writing a broad architecture vision that goes beyond visible repo evidence
Inputs To Confirm
Confirm or infer:
- Repo or package scope
- Whether the user wants a whole-repo view or only selected directories
- Whether recent activity or ownership context matters
What To Optimize For
- Concrete evidence from the repository
- Fast orientation
- Clear mental model of the codebase
- Accurate identification of entry points and working surfaces
- Explicit unknowns instead of speculation
Instructions
Step 1: Inspect The Root And Primary Docs
Start with the repo root, major directories, and the main documentation files.
Step 2: Identify Tooling And Runtime Shape
Find the main languages, frameworks, package managers, and build or runtime tooling.
Step 3: Locate Entry Points And Boundaries
Find likely entry points such as:
- App starts
- Services
- CLI commands
- Routes
- Workers
- Jobs
- Library exports
Map the major code surfaces and their responsibilities.
Step 4: Capture Validation And Automation Surfaces
Identify:
- Test locations
- Validation commands
- CI or automation surfaces
- Generated or machine-managed areas
Step 5: Note Active And Safe Areas
Inspect recent commits when useful to understand active areas or likely ownership.
Then summarize the safest and most relevant surfaces for follow-on work.
Evidence Rules
- Ground the report in specific files, directories, configs, commands, or recent commits
- Use direct repo evidence whenever possible
- If something is inferred rather than directly observed, label it as an inference
- If key information is missing, say so plainly
What To Look For
Focus on practical orientation details such as:
- Repository purpose
- Top-level directory responsibilities
- Main runtime entry points
- Build, test, lint, and typecheck commands
- Shared libraries or internal packages
- Configuration hubs
- Integration boundaries
- Generated code or machine-managed surfaces
- High-change or recently active areas
- Safe small-scope places to start editing
Output Requirements
Provide a report with these sections:
- Repository summary
- Structure map
- Tooling and validation
- Entry points and boundaries
- Active or important surfaces
- Safe starting points
- Unknowns or risks
For each major area you describe, include:
- Area or surface
- Relevant files or directories
- Responsibility
- Why it matters
For the safe starting points section, include:
- The area
- Why it is relatively safe to touch
- What kind of work is a good fit there
Examples
Example 1
User says: Before I change anything, help me understand this repo and where I should start.
Actions:
- Inspect the repo root, docs, and major directories
- Identify tooling, entry points, and boundaries
- Summarize active surfaces and safe starting points
Result: The user gets a concrete orientation report for immediate follow-on work.
Example 2
User says: Map this monorepo and tell me which package is safest for a first small change.
Actions:
- Review package layout and runtime boundaries
- Identify validation commands and generated areas
- Recommend low-risk starting surfaces with reasons
Result: The user gets a repo map plus a short list of safe entry points.
Troubleshooting
Problem: The Repo Has Little Or No Documentation
Lean harder on direct evidence from configs, manifests, entry points, and test layout. Say explicitly that the mental model is code-derived rather than doc-backed.
Problem: The Monorepo Is Too Large For A Full Pass
Narrow the scope to the packages or services most relevant to the user's next step. A partial but concrete map is better than a shallow global survey.
Problem: A Boundary Is Only Inferred
Label it as an inference and explain what evidence supports it. Do not present hidden architecture as a fact.
Quality Bar
- Be concise but specific
- Prefer named files and directories over generic descriptions
- Distinguish facts from inferences
- Do not pretend to understand hidden architecture that is not visible in the repo
- Make the report useful for immediate follow-on engineering work