/scout — External Link Analysis

Analyze an external URL (tech blog, tool, library, methodology) to evaluate its fit with the oh-my-customcode project and auto-create a GitHub issue with a structured verdict.

Usage

/scout <url>
/scout https://news.hada.io/topic?id=27673
/scout https://github.com/user/repo

Verdict Taxonomy

Verdict	Meaning	Label	Follow-up
INTERNALIZE	Aligns with project philosophy; should become a skill/agent/guide	scout:internalize + P1/P2/P3	/research or direct implementation
INTEGRATE	Useful but best kept as external dependency	scout:integrate + P2/P3	Plugin/MCP integration review
SKIP	Irrelevant or duplicates existing functionality	scout:skip	Issue created then closed

Pre-flight Guards

Pre-flight Execution Checklist (MANDATORY before Phase 1)

Both guards MUST be executed before entering Phase 1. Skipping either guard is a workflow violation.

• Guard 1: URL Validity check passed (abort if invalid)
• Guard 2: Duplicate Scout check passed (warn and confirm if duplicate found)

Proceed to Phase 1 only after both checkboxes are satisfied.

Guard 1: URL Validity (GATE)

Before any work, validate the URL:

# Check URL is syntactically valid
echo "$URL" | grep -qE '^https?://'

If invalid: [Pre-flight] GATE: Invalid or unreachable URL. Please check and retry. — abort.

Guard 2: Duplicate Scout (WARN)

Search existing GitHub issues for prior scout reports on the same URL domain:

DOMAIN=$(echo "$URL" | cut -d'/' -f3)
gh issue list --state all --label "scout:internalize,scout:integrate,scout:skip" \
  --json number,title,body --jq ".[] | select(.body | contains(\"$DOMAIN\"))" 2>/dev/null

If found: [Pre-flight] WARN: Similar URL already scouted in issue #N. Proceed anyway? [Y/n]

Why mandatory? Guard 2 생략으로 인해 동일 도메인 중복 scout 이슈가 생성된 사례 발생 (세션 회고 #1281). 중복 triage 낭비를 방지하기 위해 Pre-flight 체크리스트로 승격.

Display Format

Before execution, show the plan:

[Scout] {url}
├── Phase 1: 콘텐츠 수집 및 요약
├── Phase 2: 프로젝트 철학 로드
├── Phase 3: 적합성 분석 (sonnet)
└── Phase 4: 이슈 생성

예상: ~1분 | 비용: ~$0.5-1.5
실행하시겠습니까? [Y/n]

암묵 승인 시 필수: "되면 /scout으로 보고", "실행해줘" 등 묵시적 승인인 경우에도 위 plan 요약을 반드시 1줄 이상 표시한 뒤 진행한다 (R015 intent transparency). plan 표시 없이 바로 Phase 1으로 진입하는 것은 위반.

Workflow

Phase 1: Fetch & Summarize

1. WebFetch(url) — retrieve page content
2. Extract core information:
   • Title and purpose
   • Key technology / methodology
   • Approach and principles
3. If fetch fails — report error, abort

External quantitative-fact source tagging (#1298): WebFetch가 산출한 구체적 정량 주장(benchmark 수치, table 값, metric)은 이슈 본문에 WebFetch-derived (unverified)로 태깅한다 — 검증된 사실로 제시하지 않는다. WebFetch는 small fast model + 15분 URL 캐시를 사용하므로, 동일 URL을 여러 번 fetch해도 독립 교차검증이 아니다. load-bearing 수치는 primary PDF/원문으로 1회 검증하거나 명시적으로 unverified로 표기한다. (R020 Read-Before-Characterize, R023 Verifier Ground-Truth for cross-cutting facts)

Phase 2: Load Project Philosophy

1. Read(CLAUDE.md) — extract architecture philosophy:
   • Compilation metaphor (source -> build -> artifact)
   • Separation of concerns (R006)
   • Dynamic agent creation ("no expert? create one")
   • Skill/agent/guide/rule structure
2. Read(README.md) — extract project overview and component inventory
3. Glob(.claude/skills/*/SKILL.md) — list existing skills for overlap detection

Phase 3: Fit Analysis

MUST: Agent tool 호출 시 반드시 mode: "bypassPermissions" 파라미터를 포함해야 한다 (R010 Universal bypassPermissions). CC Agent tool의 기본값은 acceptEdits이며, 이는 agent frontmatter의 permissionMode를 덮어쓴다. mode 누락 시 Bash/WebFetch 권한 프롬프트가 발생하여 비대화형 실행이 중단된다.

❌ Agent(subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "...")
✓  Agent(subagent_type: "general-purpose", mode: "bypassPermissions", prompt: "...")

Spawn 1 sonnet agent with mode: "bypassPermissions" and the following analysis prompt.

Inputs:

• Fetched content summary (Phase 1)
• Project philosophy context (Phase 2)
• Existing skill list (Phase 2)

Analysis dimensions:

Dimension	Question
Philosophy alignment	Does it match the compilation metaphor, separation of concerns, "create experts on demand"?
Technical fit	Does it complement or overlap with existing skills/agents/guides?
Integration effort	How much work to internalize vs. use externally?
Value proposition	What concrete benefit does it bring to the project?

Agent prompt template:

You are a project fit analyst. Given:

1. External content summary:
{phase1_summary}

2. Project philosophy:
{phase2_philosophy}

3. Existing skills ({skill_count} total):
{skill_list}

Analyze the external content against the project philosophy across 4 dimensions:
- Philosophy alignment
- Technical fit (overlap with existing skills?)
- Integration effort (XS/S/M/L)
- Value proposition

Return a structured verdict:
- verdict: INTERNALIZE | INTEGRATE | SKIP
- priority: P1 | P2 | P3
- rationale: 2-3 sentences
- philosophy_table: criterion/fit/rationale for each dimension
- recommendation: specific integration plan or skip reason
- next_steps: 2-3 actionable items
- IMPORTANT: Write all analysis output in Korean. Technical terms, code references, label names, and skill/agent names stay in English.
- escalation: true/false (INTERNALIZE + M/L effort = true)

Output: Structured verdict with rationale.

Phase 4: Issue Creation

NOTE: Phase 4는 orchestrator가 직접 gh issue create (Bash)로 처리한다. 만약 이슈 생성을 Agent(mgr-gitnerd 등)에 위임할 경우, 해당 Agent tool 호출에도 반드시 mode: "bypassPermissions"를 포함해야 한다 (R010).

1. Ensure scout labels exist (defensive, idempotent):

gh label create "scout:internalize" --color "0E8A16" --description "Scout: should be internalized" 2>/dev/null || true
gh label create "scout:integrate" --color "1D76DB" --description "Scout: keep as external" 2>/dev/null || true
gh label create "scout:skip" --color "D4C5F9" --description "Scout: skip" 2>/dev/null || true

2. Create GitHub issue:

gh issue create \
  --title "[scout:{verdict}] {content_title}" \
  --label "scout:{verdict},P{n}" \
  --body "{issue_body}"

3. If verdict is SKIP: auto-close the issue:

gh issue close {number} -c "Auto-closed: scout verdict is SKIP"

Issue Body Template

## Scout 리포트: {title}

**출처**: {url}
**판정**: {INTERNALIZE / INTEGRATE / SKIP}
**우선순위**: {P1 / P2 / P3}

## 요약
{외부 콘텐츠에 대한 2-3문장 요약}

## 프로젝트 철학 정합성
| 기준 | 적합 | 근거 |
|------|------|------|
| Compilation metaphor | {check/cross} | {설명} |
| Separation of concerns (R006) | {check/cross} | {설명} |
| Dynamic agent creation | {check/cross} | {설명} |
| 기존 스킬 중복 | {check/cross} | {중복 스킬 목록} |

## 권장 사항
{구체적 통합 계획 — 어떤 skill/agent/guide를 생성할지, 또는 건너뛰는 이유}

## 다음 단계
- [ ] {후속 조치 1}
- [ ] {후속 조치 2}

---
`/scout`에 의해 생성됨

Escalation

When verdict is INTERNALIZE and integration effort is M or L:

[Advisory] 심층 분석 권장.
└── 실행 검토: /research {url}

Result Display

[Scout 완료] {title}
├── 판정: {INTERNALIZE / INTEGRATE / SKIP}
├── 우선순위: {P1 / P2 / P3}
├── 이슈: #{number}
└── 에스컬레이션: {/research 권장 | 없음}

Model Selection

Phase	Model	Rationale
Phase 1 (Fetch)	orchestrator	Simple WebFetch, no agent needed
Phase 2 (Load)	orchestrator	Simple Read/Glob, no agent needed
Phase 3 (Analysis)	sonnet	Balanced reasoning for fit analysis
Phase 4 (Issue)	orchestrator	gh issue create via Bash

Integration

Rule	How
R009	Single agent in Phase 3 — no parallelism needed
R010	Orchestrator manages phases 1/2/4; analysis delegated to sonnet agent in Phase 3
R015	Display scout plan before execution (Display Format section)

When NOT to Use

Scenario	Better Alternative
Deep multi-source research	/research <url>
Internal project analysis	/omcustom:analysis
Known tool evaluation	Direct agent conversation
Bulk URL analysis (5+)	/research with URL list

Differences from /research

Aspect	/scout	/research
Purpose	Quick fit evaluation	Deep multi-dimensional analysis
Teams	1 agent	10 teams
Cost	~$0.5-1.5	~$8-15
Duration	1-2 min	10-20 min
Output	Issue with verdict	Full report with ADOPT/ADAPT/AVOID
When	First contact with new link	Deep dive after scout recommends