Discover

Intent

Explore data or systems to find patterns, relationships, or anomalies that were not explicitly requested or expected. Discovery is open-ended exploration that surfaces novel insights rather than confirming hypotheses.

Success criteria:

• At least one non-obvious finding surfaced
• Significance level assigned to each discovery
• Novelty classified (known, suspected, surprising)
• Methodology documented for reproducibility

Compatible schemas:

• schemas/output_schema.yaml

Inputs

Procedure

1. Define search space boundaries: Establish what is in and out of scope

   • File patterns, directories, or data sources
   • Conceptual boundaries (domain, time range)
   • Depth limits (how many hops of relationships)

2. Apply discovery heuristics: Use exploration strategies systematically

   • Pattern mining: Look for recurring structures, naming conventions, code patterns
   • Relationship mapping: Find connections between entities (imports, calls, references)
   • Anomaly detection: Identify outliers, inconsistencies, unusual structures
   • Gap analysis: Find missing elements, broken links, incomplete patterns

3. Assess significance: Evaluate each finding's importance

   • High: Directly actionable or explains important behavior
   • Medium: Useful context or potential issue
   • Low: Interesting but not actionable

4. Classify novelty: Determine how surprising each discovery is

   • Known: Documented or widely understood
   • Suspected: Hypothesized but not confirmed
   • Surprising: Unexpected or counter to assumptions

5. Identify entities involved: Link discoveries to specific entities

   • Files, functions, classes, modules
   • People, teams, systems
   • Concepts, patterns, architectures

6. Ground claims: Attach evidence anchors to all discoveries

   • Exact locations where patterns occur
   • References to related documentation

7. Synthesize findings: Connect individual discoveries into coherent insights

Output Contract

Return a structured object:

discoveries:
  - type: string  # relationship, pattern, anomaly, gap, opportunity
    description: string  # What was discovered
    significance: low | medium | high
    novelty: known | suspected | surprising
    entities_involved: array[string]
    location: string  # Where found (file:line, path, or reference)
methodology: string  # How discovery was conducted
search_space: string  # What was explored
confidence: number  # 0.0-1.0 confidence in discoveries
evidence_anchors: array[string]  # References to supporting evidence
assumptions: array[string]  # Conditions that affect findings

Field Definitions

Examples

Example 1: Discover Hidden Dependencies

Input:

search_space: "src/"
discovery_type: "relationship"
constraints:
  max_depth: 3
  focus: "imports and function calls"

Output:

discoveries:
  - type: "relationship"
    description: "Circular dependency between UserService and AuthService"
    significance: high
    novelty: surprising
    entities_involved:
      - "src/services/UserService.ts"
      - "src/services/AuthService.ts"
    location: "src/services/UserService.ts:12 imports AuthService; src/services/AuthService.ts:8 imports UserService"
  - type: "pattern"
    description: "All repository classes follow identical initialization pattern with DI container lookup"
    significance: medium
    novelty: known
    entities_involved:
      - "src/repositories/*.ts"
    location: "src/repositories/"
  - type: "anomaly"
    description: "PaymentService bypasses standard error handling pattern used by all other services"
    significance: high
    novelty: suspected
    entities_involved:
      - "src/services/PaymentService.ts"
    location: "src/services/PaymentService.ts:45-78"
  - type: "gap"
    description: "No unit tests for critical OrderValidation module"
    significance: high
    novelty: surprising
    entities_involved:
      - "src/validation/OrderValidation.ts"
    location: "tests/ - no corresponding test file"
methodology: "Static analysis of import statements, grep for class instantiation patterns, comparison against test file naming conventions"
search_space: "src/ directory (156 TypeScript files)"
confidence: 0.85
evidence_anchors:
  - "src/services/UserService.ts:12"
  - "src/services/AuthService.ts:8"
  - "src/services/PaymentService.ts:45"
  - "tests/:directory-listing"
assumptions:
  - "Standard TypeScript import resolution"
  - "Test files follow *Spec.ts or *.test.ts convention"
  - "All production code is in src/"

Evidence pattern: Grep for import statements, build dependency graph, compare patterns across files.

Example 2: Discover Architecture Patterns

Input:

search_space: "entire codebase"
discovery_type: "pattern"
seed_observations:
  - "Some endpoints seem to share similar structure"

Output:

discoveries:
  - type: "pattern"
    description: "Three distinct architectural styles coexist: MVC in /admin, DDD in /core, and script-style in /legacy"
    significance: high
    novelty: suspected
    entities_involved:
      - "/admin/*"
      - "/core/*"
      - "/legacy/*"
    location: "Repository-wide directory structure"
  - type: "relationship"
    description: "DDD bounded contexts in /core share a common anti-corruption layer for legacy integration"
    significance: medium
    novelty: surprising
    entities_involved:
      - "/core/adapters/legacy/"
    location: "/core/adapters/legacy/*.ts"
  - type: "opportunity"
    description: "MVC controllers in /admin could be consolidated - 12 controllers have nearly identical CRUD patterns"
    significance: medium
    novelty: known
    entities_involved:
      - "/admin/controllers/*.ts"
    location: "/admin/controllers/"
methodology: "Directory structure analysis, pattern matching on file organization, code similarity detection"
search_space: "Full repository (312 files, 4 top-level directories)"
confidence: 0.75
evidence_anchors:
  - "/admin/controllers/:pattern-sample"
  - "/core/domain/:ddd-structure"
  - "/core/adapters/legacy/LegacyAdapter.ts:1-50"
assumptions:
  - "Directory structure reflects intentional architecture"
  - "Pattern differences are deliberate, not accidental"

Verification

• Each discovery has type, significance, and novelty classified
• At least one discovery has evidence_anchors
• Methodology is documented and reproducible
• Search space boundaries are clearly defined
• Surprising discoveries are supported by multiple evidence points

Verification tools: Read (to verify locations), Grep (to confirm patterns exist)

Safety Constraints

• mutation: false
• requires_checkpoint: false
• requires_approval: false
• risk: low

Capability-specific rules:

• Do not modify any files during discovery
• Respect scope boundaries - do not explore outside search_space
• Flag discoveries that may reveal sensitive information
• Report uncertainty when findings could be coincidental

Composition Patterns

Commonly follows:

• inspect - Discovery often follows initial system observation
• search - Discovery extends search results
• identify - Discovery finds relationships between identified entities

Commonly precedes:

• identify - Discovered entities may need identification
• estimate - Discovered patterns may need quantification
• compare - Discovered options may need comparison
• plan - Discoveries may trigger action planning

Anti-patterns:

• Never use discover for known-item retrieval (use search)
• Avoid discover for existence checking (use detect)
• Do not use discover when you already know what to find

Workflow references:

• See reference/composition_patterns.md#capability-gap-analysis for discover-relationship usage
• See reference/composition_patterns.md#world-model-build for discovery in modeling