Startup review
Tries the cold-start path and reports how much work it takes to get the repo running.
Trigger
Use when the user wants to know whether a repo is actually easy to start, not just whether it claims to be.
Workflow
- If a compatibility scan result is already available from the parent task, use it as context. Otherwise run the compatibility scan once.
- Read the obvious startup surfaces:
README, scripts, toolchain files, env examples, and workflow docs.
- Pick the most likely bootstrap path and startup command.
- Try to reach first success inside a fixed time budget.
- If the first path fails, allow a small amount of recovery and note what you had to infer.
- Do not infer a startup failure from a lockfile, a bound port, or an existing repo-local process by itself.
- Only call startup blocked or failed when your own startup attempt fails, or when the documented startup path cannot be completed within the budget.
- Pick a specific score instead of a round bucket. Start from these anchors and move a few points if the evidence clearly warrants it:
- around
93/100 if the main startup path works inside the time budget, even if it needs ordinary local prerequisites such as Docker or a database.
- around
84/100 if the repo starts, but only after some digging, a recovery step, or heavier setup than the docs suggest.
- around
68/100 if a startup path probably exists but stays too manual, too ambiguous, or too expensive for normal agent use.
- around
27/100 if you cannot get a credible startup path working from the repo and docs you have.
- around
12/100 if the path is blocked on secrets, accounts, or infrastructure you cannot reasonably access.
- Prefer a specific score such as
82, 85, or 91 over a multiple of ten when that is the more honest read.
- Return the result in the same plain-text report shape as the deterministic scan.
Output
Reply in plain text only (no markdown fences, no # headings, no emphasis syntax). Use this layout:
First line: Startup Compatibility Score: <score>/100
Then a short summary paragraph.
Then the line Problems followed by one bullet per line using - .
- Base the score on what happened when you actually tried to start the repo.
- Build Problems from the real startup friction you observed.
- If the repo is blocked on secrets, accounts, or external infra, say that plainly and still use the same output shape.
- Do not assume a Next.js lockfile or a port that does not answer HTTP immediately is a repo problem.
- Do not require an HTTP response unless the documented startup path clearly implies one and you actually started that path yourself.
- If the environment starts successfully, treat that as a strong result. Record the friction, but do not score it like a near-failure.
- Treat Docker, local services, and other standard dev prerequisites as friction, not failure.
- Error-message quality is secondary here unless it actually prevents startup or recovery.
1---2name: cursor-plugin-agent-compat-agent-startup-review3description: Try to bootstrap and start a repository like a cold agent, then report where the path breaks down4---56# Startup review78Tries the cold-start path and reports how much work it takes to get the repo running.910## Trigger1112Use when the user wants to know whether a repo is actually easy to start, not just whether it claims to be.1314## Workflow15161. If a compatibility scan result is already available from the parent task, use it as context. Otherwise run the compatibility scan once.172. Read the obvious startup surfaces: `README`, scripts, toolchain files, env examples, and workflow docs.183. Pick the most likely bootstrap path and startup command.194. Try to reach first success inside a fixed time budget.205. If the first path fails, allow a small amount of recovery and note what you had to infer.216. Do not infer a startup failure from a lockfile, a bound port, or an existing repo-local process by itself.227. Only call startup blocked or failed when your own startup attempt fails, or when the documented startup path cannot be completed within the budget.238. Pick a specific score instead of a round bucket. Start from these anchors and move a few points if the evidence clearly warrants it:24 - around `93/100` if the main startup path works inside the time budget, even if it needs ordinary local prerequisites such as Docker or a database.25 - around `84/100` if the repo starts, but only after some digging, a recovery step, or heavier setup than the docs suggest.26 - around `68/100` if a startup path probably exists but stays too manual, too ambiguous, or too expensive for normal agent use.27 - around `27/100` if you cannot get a credible startup path working from the repo and docs you have.28 - around `12/100` if the path is blocked on secrets, accounts, or infrastructure you cannot reasonably access.299. Prefer a specific score such as `82`, `85`, or `91` over a multiple of ten when that is the more honest read.3010. Return the result in the same plain-text report shape as the deterministic scan.3132## Output3334Reply in **plain text only** (no markdown fences, no `#` headings, no emphasis syntax). Use this layout:3536First line: `Startup Compatibility Score: <score>/100`3738Then a short summary paragraph.3940Then the line `Problems` followed by one bullet per line using `- `.4142- Base the score on what happened when you actually tried to start the repo.43- Build Problems from the real startup friction you observed.44- If the repo is blocked on secrets, accounts, or external infra, say that plainly and still use the same output shape.45- Do not assume a Next.js lockfile or a port that does not answer HTTP immediately is a repo problem.46- Do not require an HTTP response unless the documented startup path clearly implies one and you actually started that path yourself.47- If the environment starts successfully, treat that as a strong result. Record the friction, but do not score it like a near-failure.48- Treat Docker, local services, and other standard dev prerequisites as friction, not failure.49- Error-message quality is secondary here unless it actually prevents startup or recovery.