Repo Workflow Checker

Repo Workflow Checker

Audit the repository scaffold that helps coding agents work safely and consistently. Report findings first. Ask before creating or editing files.

When To Use

Use this when setting up a repo for coding agents, checking agent workflow readiness, or preparing repeatable AI-assisted development.

Do not use this for current project status; use project-status-dashboard. Do not use it to clean stale docs; use project-docs-cleanup.

Check

Look for:

• Repository instructions: AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, or equivalent.
• Work queues: BACKLOG.md, BUGS.md, TODO.md, issue exports, or project docs.
• Specs or plans: specs/, docs/, plans/, impp/, or similar.
• Agent skills: .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, or project-local skill folders.
• Verification commands: package.json, Makefile, CI workflows, test config, lint/typecheck config.
• Archive and history conventions for completed work.

For sample prompts and readiness reports, see references/examples.md. For a scaffold scoring matrix, see references/scaffold-matrix.md.

Input Signals

Use repository files and configuration: instructions docs, skill folders, scripts, package manifests, CI workflows, issue templates, PR templates, changelog, archive folders, and test commands. Adapt the check to the repo's language and tooling.

Output

Return:

• Status: ready, partially ready, or missing scaffold.
• Found: existing workflow assets.
• Gaps: missing or weak assets, ordered by impact.
• Suggested Scaffold: exact files/directories to add.
• Verification Map: likely commands for build, lint, test, and format.
• Approval Needed: changes that would be required to bring the repo up to standard.

Guardrails

• Do not invent a workflow that conflicts with existing repo conventions.
• Do not create files unless the user explicitly asks for setup.
• Keep recommendations minimal and repo-shaped.
• Do not require a specific vendor or agent platform.

Avoid

• Do not prescribe both Codex and Claude directories when one existing convention is clear.
• Do not mark a scaffold ready if no verification command can be found.
• Do not propose broad process docs when a small instruction file or template would close the gap.

Final Checks

• Findings distinguish existing assets from missing assets.
• Gaps are ordered by practical impact.
• Suggested scaffold files are minimal and repo-shaped.
• Approval-needed changes are explicit.