Project Discovery

---
name: discover
scope: universal
description: |
  [UDS] Assess project health, architecture, and risks before adding features to an existing codebase.
  Use when: onboarding to an unfamiliar or legacy project, sizing risk before starting a feature, building a risk register.
  Not for: ongoing metric tracking on a codebase you already know — use /metrics; recovering specs from code — use /reverse.
  Keywords: discovery, project assessment, legacy onboarding, risk register, technical debt, 現況評估, 專案盤點, 風險登記簿.
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash(npm test:*), Bash(npm audit:*), Bash(npm outdated:*)
argument-hint: "[feature area | 功能範圍]"
status: stable
# 2026-08-18: `disable-model-invocation: true` removed, and a status recorded.
#
# The flag was applied by d415937e alongside the description rewrite and, like
# the two lifted on 2026-08-17, followed no stateable rule. These eight were
# left alone that day for a reason that was correct at the time: the rule
# settled on was "a reference is model-invocable", and none of them carried a
# `status` at all, so lifting them would have replaced one unruled state with
# one unruled action.
#
# Measured 2026-08-18, which is what closed it: all eight carry a full
# `Use when:` trigger and a `Not for:` exclusion, all eight describe an action
# rather than reference material, and all eight already have a slash command —
# which is exactly the shape of `code-review-assistant`, whose paired `/code-review`
# was ruled not to justify the flag. `journey-test-assistant` is the standing
# precedent: same "Generate X" shape, `status: stable`, never disabled.
#
# `stable` rather than a new value: `skills/` uses reference, stable and
# experimental, and inventing a fourth would be the same unruled-action mistake
# in different clothing.
#
# The cost of being wrong is asymmetric and observable in only one direction.
# Over-triggering shows up and is undone by deleting a line; a skill that is
# structurally unable to fire produces no signal at all. (XSPEC-378 R5)
---

# Project Discovery | 專案現況評估

Phase 0 assessment before adding features to existing codebases. Evaluate project health, architecture, and risks.

在既有程式碼庫新增功能前的 Phase 0 評估。評估專案健康度、架構與風險。

## Assessment Dimensions | 評估維度

| Dimension | What to Check | 檢查項目 |
|-----------|--------------|----------|
| **Architecture** | Module structure, dependency graph, entry points | 模組結構、相依圖、進入點 |
| **Dependencies** | Outdated packages, known vulnerabilities, license risks | 過時套件、已知漏洞、授權風險 |
| **Test Coverage** | Existing test suite, coverage gaps, test quality | 現有測試、覆蓋率缺口、測試品質 |
| **Security** | `npm audit` findings, hardcoded secrets, exposed endpoints | 安全稽核、硬編碼密鑰、暴露端點 |
| **Technical Debt** | TODOs, code duplication, complexity hotspots | TODO 標記、程式碼重複、複雜度熱點 |

## Workflow | 工作流程

1. **Scan project** - Read package.json, directory structure, config files
2. **Analyze architecture** - Map modules, dependencies, and data flow
3. **Check dependencies** - Run `npm outdated`, `npm audit` for health signals
4. **Assess risks** - Identify complexity hotspots, missing tests, security issues
5. **Generate report** - Output health score with actionable recommendations

## Output Format | 輸出格式

```
Project Health Report
=====================
Overall Score: 7.2 / 10

| Dimension       | Score | Status  | Key Finding            |
|-----------------|-------|---------|------------------------|
| Architecture    | 8/10  | Good    | Clean module boundaries |
| Dependencies    | 6/10  | Warning | 5 outdated, 1 critical |
| Test Coverage   | 7/10  | Fair    | 72% line coverage      |
| Security        | 8/10  | Good    | No critical vulns      |
| Technical Debt  | 6/10  | Warning | 23 TODOs, 3 hotspots   |

Recommendations:
1. [HIGH] Update lodash to fix CVE-2024-XXXX
2. [MED]  Add tests for src/payments/ (0% coverage)
3. [LOW]  Resolve TODO backlog in src/utils/
```

## Risk Register | 風險登記簿

After assessment, identified risks are recorded in a structured Risk Register for ongoing tracking.

評估完成後，已識別的風險記錄在結構化的風險登記簿中進行持續追蹤。

### Risk Matrix | 風險矩陣

```
              Impact | 影響
         Low    Med    High
High   [ Med ] [High] [Crit]
Med    [ Low ] [Med ] [High]   Likelihood | 可能性
Low    [ Low ] [Low ] [Med ]
```

### Risk Register Template | 風險登記簿模板

```markdown
# Risk Register — [Project Name]
**Last Updated**: YYYY-MM-DD

| ID | Category | Description | Likelihood | Impact | Level | Owner | Mitigation | Status |
|----|----------|-------------|-----------|--------|-------|-------|------------|--------|
| RISK-001 | Security | Outdated deps with CVEs | High | High | Critical | @dev | npm audit fix | Open |
| RISK-002 | Performance | No load testing | Medium | High | High | @ops | Add k6 tests | Open |
| RISK-003 | Quality | Low test coverage in payments | High | Medium | High | @qa | Add IT tests | Mitigating |
```

### Risk Status Lifecycle | 風險狀態

```
Identified ──► Mitigating ──► Resolved ──► Closed
     │
     └──► Accepted (with justification)
```

### Risk Storage | 風險存放

```
docs/risks/
├── RISK-REGISTER.md              # Active risk register
├── RISK-REGISTER-2026-Q1.md      # Quarterly snapshot (optional)
└── README.md                     # Index
```

## Usage | 使用方式

- `/discover` - Full project health assessment
- `/discover auth` - Focused assessment of auth-related modules
- `/discover payments` - Assess risks before adding payment features
- `/discover --risks` - View current risk register
- `/discover --update-risk RISK-NNN` - Update a risk item status

## Next Steps Guidance | 下一步引導

After `/discover` completes, the AI assistant should suggest based on the assessment:

> **根據評估結果，建議下一步 / Based on assessment, suggested next steps:**
> - **New feature / 新功能** → `/sdd` to create a specification ⭐ **Recommended / 推薦**
> - **Legacy code / 遺留程式碼** → `/reverse spec` to extract existing behavior
> - **Refactoring / 重構** → `/refactor decide` to choose a strategy
> - **Quick fix / 快速修復** → `/tdd` to write a targeted test and fix
> - **Risk tracking / 風險追蹤** → `/discover --risks` to view risk register
> - **Architecture decision / 架構決策** → `/adr` to record decisions made during discovery

## Reference | 參考

- Detailed guide: [guide.md](./guide.md)


## AI Agent Behavior | AI 代理行為

> 完整的 AI 行為定義請參閱對應的命令文件：[`/discover`](../commands/discover.md#ai-agent-behavior--ai-代理行為)
>
> For complete AI agent behavior definition, see the corresponding command file: [`/discover`](../commands/discover.md#ai-agent-behavior--ai-代理行為)