Assessment Skill
SkillAI & modelsLets your agent inspect a codebase, check service health, and weigh decisions without changing anything.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Add ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.
Then ask your AI: use the Assessment Skill skill
About this skill
Assessment: read-only inspection, codebase overview, value analysis, health checks, ADR consultation, decision analysis, multi-perspective critique.
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by notque/vexjoy-agent in skills/analysis/assessment/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Seven modes for read-only analysis and decision support. Match the request to a mode, then follow that mode's phases.
Mode Selection
| Request pattern | Mode |
|---|---|
| Inspect, browse, explore without changing | Read-Only Inspection |
| Onboard, overview, summarize repo, codebase structure | Codebase Overview |
| Repo value analysis, compare repos, what can we learn | Repo Value Analysis |
| Service status, health check, uptime, validate endpoints | Service Health Check |
| Consult on ADR, challenge design, architecture consultation | ADR Consultation |
| Help me decide, decision matrix, pros/cons, trade-offs | Decision Scoring |
| Critique ideas, devil's advocate, stress test, roast | Multi-Persona Critique |
Read-Only Inspection
Safe exploration without modifying files or system state.
Phase 1: SCOPE
Parse the request. Determine target scope (file, directory, service, system-wide). Clarify before proceeding if scope could match dozens of results.
Phase 2: GATHER
Use read-only tools only.
Allowed: ls, find, wc, du, df, file, stat, ps, top -bn1,
uptime, free, pgrep, git status/log/diff/show/branch,
sqlite3 "SELECT ...", curl -s (GET only), date, env.
Forbidden: mkdir, rm, mv, cp, touch, chmod, chown,
git add/commit/push, file writes, INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE/DROP,
npm/pip/apt install, kill, systemctl restart.
Phase 3: REPORT
Lead with the answer. Show supporting evidence. List files examined. All claims must cite evidence.
Codebase Overview
4-phase exploration producing an evidence-backed onboarding report. Read-only.
Read any .claude/CLAUDE.md or CLAUDE.md in the repo root first. Skip
sensitive files (.env, *.pem, *.key, credentials) silently.
Phase 1: DETECT
Examine root directory. Identify project type from config files (package.json,
go.mod, pyproject.toml, pom.xml, Cargo.toml). Document: language,
framework, build system, dependencies. Load references/codebase-overview/exploration-strategies.md
for language-specific discovery commands.
Gate: Project type identified. Tech stack documented.
Phase 2: EXPLORE
Discover entry points, core modules, data models, API surfaces, configuration,
tests. Limit 20 files per category. Map directory structure (exclude
node_modules/, venv/, vendor/, dist/, build/, __pycache__/).
Gate: Entry points, core modules, data layer, API surface, config, tests documented.
Phase 3: MAP
Identify design patterns with file evidence. Map 5-10 key abstractions. Trace a typical request through the full stack. Analyze last 10 commits. All paths absolute. All claims cite source files.
Gate: Patterns identified, abstractions mapped, data flow documented.
Phase 4: SUMMARIZE
Generate report using references/codebase-overview/report-template.md.
Include "Where to Add New Code" section. Run post-exploration secret scan.
For deep-dive mode ("full picture"), launch 4 parallel domain agents via Task.
See references/codebase-overview/examples-and-errors.md for dispatch template.
Scripts: scripts/cartographer.py (quick), scripts/cartographer_omni.py
(100-metric), scripts/cartographer_ultimate.py (focused performance).
Repo Value Analysis
6-phase pipeline analyzing external repositories for adoptable ideas.
Phase 1: CLONE
Parse input (GitHub URL, local path, org/repo). git clone --depth 1.
Categorize files into zones (skills, agents, hooks, docs, tests, config, code,
other). Cap zones at ~100 files.
Phase 2: DEEP-READ (parallel)
Dispatch 1 Agent per zone (up to 8). Each reads EVERY file and produces:
component inventory, key techniques, notable patterns, gaps. Output to
/tmp/[REPO]-zone-[zone].md.
Gate: 75%+ agents returned.
Phase 3: INVENTORY (parallel with Phase 2)
Dispatch 1 Agent to catalog vexjoy-agent repo: agents, skills, hooks, scripts
with counts. Output to /tmp/self-inventory.md.
Phase 4: SYNTHESIZE
Read all zone findings and inventory. Build comparison table. Rate gaps:
HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW. Save draft to research-[REPO]-comparison.md.
Phase 5: AUDIT (parallel)
For each HIGH/MEDIUM recommendation, dispatch 1 audit Agent to verify: ALREADY
EXISTS, PARTIAL, or MISSING. Skip with --quick.
Phase 6: REPORT
Adjust recommendations from audit. Write final report: executive summary,
comparison table, already-covered, recommendations, verdict, next steps. Clean
/tmp/ files. Load references/repo-value-analysis/phase7-implement-template.md
for implementation dispatch.
Service Health Check
Deterministic service monitoring: Discover-Check-Report. Never report healthy without verifying process status independently.
Phase 1: DISCOVER
Locate service definitions: services.json, docker-compose, systemd units, or
user input. Build manifest: process pattern, health file, port, stale threshold
per service.
Phase 2: CHECK
Per service: (1) pgrep -f "<pattern>" for process status, (2) parse health
file JSON for staleness/status/connections, (3) ss -tlnp "sport = :<port>"
for port.
| Condition | Status |
|---|---|
| Process not running | DOWN |
| Running + health file missing/stale | WARNING |
| Running + status=error | ERROR |
| Running + disconnected >30min | WARNING |
| Running + port not listening | ERROR |
| Running + healthy | HEALTHY |
Gate: All services evaluated with evidence.
Phase 3: REPORT
Output summary (X/N healthy), highlight services needing action, provide copy-pasteable remediation. Never auto-restart without explicit flag.
For endpoint validation, load references/service-health-check/endpoint-validator.md.
For CVE source auditing, load references/service-health-check/cve-source-check.md.
ADR Consultation
3-agent parallel architecture consultation producing PROCEED or BLOCKED.
Phase 1: DISCOVER
Locate ADR (user path, .adr-session.json, or ask). Validate via
adr-query.py. Read full ADR. Create adr/{adr-name}/ directory.
Gate: ADR read, path validated, consultation directory created.
Phase 2: DISPATCH (parallel)
Launch all 3 agents in ONE message. Load references/adr-consultation/agent-prompts.md
for prompt templates:
- Contrarian (reviewer-perspectives): challenge assumptions, simpler alternatives
- User advocate (reviewer-perspectives): user impact, cognitive load
- Meta-process (reviewer-perspectives): system health, coupling, SPOF
For complex decisions, add 2 more agents (see agent-prompts.md).
Gate: All agents returned and wrote to adr/{adr-name}/.
Phase 3: SYNTHESIZE
Read agent files from disk. Extract concerns to adr/{adr-name}/concerns.md.
Determine verdict: all PROCEED = strong consensus, any BLOCK = hard block,
mixed = significant concerns. Write adr/{adr-name}/synthesis.md. Issue
verdict per references/adr-consultation/consultation-patterns.md.
Decision Scoring
Weighted scoring for 2-4 options. Runs inline (no fork).
Step 1: Frame
State decision in one sentence. List 2-4 options. Eliminate non-starters first.
Step 2: Criteria
Default weights (adjust per domain -- load references/decision-helper/decision-archetypes.md
for build-vs-buy, database, cloud, framework, API, or operational tooling):
| Criterion | Weight | Measures |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness | 5 | Solves the actual problem |
| Complexity | 3 | Added complexity (lower = better) |
| Maintainability | 3 | Ease of change/debug |
| Risk | 3 | Failure mode severity |
| Effort | 2 | Implementation time |
| Familiarity | 2 | Team comfort |
| Ecosystem | 1 | Library/community support |
Lock weights before scoring. Do not adjust after seeing results.
Step 3: Score
Rate each option 1-10 per criterion with one-sentence justification. Calculate
sum(score * weight) / sum(weights).
Step 4: Analyze
All scores <6.0: no good option -- explore alternatives. Top two within 0.5: close call -- identify deciding criteria. Top leads by >0.5: recommend winner. If matrix contradicts intuition, ask which criterion is missing.
Step 5: Persist
Append to active ADR session (.adr-session.json) or task plan.
Multi-Persona Critique
5-persona parallel critique with consensus synthesis.
Phase 1: UNDERSTAND
Extract or generate numbered proposals. Each: what it does, why it matters, how it differs from status quo (2-4 sentences). Research domain first if generating.
Phase 2: BRIEF
Load references/multi-persona-critique/personas.md. Build prompts for 5
personas, each receiving ALL proposals:
- The Logician: coherence, assumptions, falsifiability
- The Pragmatic Builder: build cost, maintenance, simpler alternatives
- The Systems Purist: accidental complexity, separation of concerns
- The End User Advocate: friction, delight, solved-problem test
- The Skeptical Philosopher: human agency, dependency risk
Each produces: STRONG/PROMISING/WEAK/REJECT per proposal, ranked list, cross-cutting observations.
Phase 3: DISPATCH (parallel)
Launch all 5 via Agent. Wait for ALL to complete.
Phase 4: SYNTHESIZE
Build consensus matrix (proposals x personas x ratings). Classify: CONSENSUS (4+ agree), CONTESTED (2-3 split), OUTLIER (1 vs 4). Score: STRONG=3, PROMISING=2, WEAK=1, REJECT=0. Sum per proposal (0-15).
Phase 5: PRESENT
Generate report using references/multi-persona-critique/synthesis-template.md:
consensus matrix, features to build, worth investigating, disagreements,
shelve, cross-cutting insights.
For roast-style code critique with HN personas and file:line validation, load
references/multi-persona-critique/roast.md.
Deep References
Load on demand when the corresponding phase needs detailed lookup data.
| Context | Reference | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Codebase overview: language commands | references/codebase-overview/exploration-strategies.md | Per-language discovery commands |
| Codebase overview: report format | references/codebase-overview/report-template.md | 12-section report template |
| Codebase overview: deep-dive dispatch | references/codebase-overview/examples-and-errors.md | Parallel agent template, worked examples |
| Codebase overview: statistical lenses | references/codebase-overview/statistical-three-lenses.md | Three-lens statistical analysis |
| Codebase overview: metrics catalog | references/codebase-overview/statistical-metrics-catalog.md | 100-metric catalog |
| Codebase overview: statistical phases | references/codebase-overview/statistical-phase-details.md | Phase banners and workflows |
| Codebase overview: statistical examples | references/codebase-overview/statistical-analysis-examples.md | Real-world statistical workflows |
| Value analysis: implementation | references/repo-value-analysis/phase7-implement-template.md | Agent dispatch template |
| Health check: endpoint validation | references/service-health-check/endpoint-validator.md | Full endpoint validation methodology |
| Health check: security headers | references/service-health-check/security-headers.md | HSTS, CSP reference |
| Health check: endpoint config | references/service-health-check/endpoint-config-preferred-patterns.md | Config patterns |
| Health check: auth endpoints | references/service-health-check/auth-endpoint-patterns.md | Auth endpoint patterns |
| Health check: CVE sources | references/service-health-check/cve-source-check.md | CVE source check methodology |
| ADR: agent prompts | references/adr-consultation/agent-prompts.md | 3-agent prompt templates |
| ADR: artifact patterns | references/adr-consultation/consultation-patterns.md | Verdict display, artifact templates |
| ADR: failure modes | references/adr-consultation/consultation-preferred-patterns.md | Dispatch and verdict fixes |
| ADR: error recovery | references/adr-consultation/error-handling.md | Error recovery by phase |
| Decision: archetypes | references/decision-helper/decision-archetypes.md | Archetype-specific criteria weights |
| Decision: failure modes | references/decision-helper/decision-preferred-patterns.md | Scoring discipline patterns |
| Critique: personas | references/multi-persona-critique/personas.md | 5 persona specifications |
| Critique: synthesis | references/multi-persona-critique/synthesis-template.md | Consensus matrix and report |
| Critique: examples | references/multi-persona-critique/examples-and-errors.md | Worked examples, failure modes |
| Critique: roast mode | references/multi-persona-critique/roast.md | HN persona evidence-based critique |
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 425
- Forks
- 46
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Key
assessment- Source
- github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent