Analyze external URL to evaluate fit with oh-my-customcode project and auto-create GitHub issue with verdict
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add baekenough/second-brain --skill scout --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Scout?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/baekenough-scout-second-brain)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: scout
description: Analyze external URL to evaluate fit with oh-my-customcode project and auto-create GitHub issue with verdict
scope: core
version: 1.0.0
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: "<url>"
---
# /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
### Guard 1: URL Validity (GATE)
Before any work, validate the URL:
```bash
# Check URL is syntactically valid
echo "$URL" | grep -qE '^https?://'
```
If invalid: `[Pre-flight] GATE: Invalid or unreachable URL. Please check and retry.` — abort.
### Guard 2: Duplicate Scout (WARN)
Search existing GitHub issues for prior scout reports on the same URL domain:
```bash
DOMAIN=$(echo "$URL" | sed 's|https\?://||' | cut -d'/' -f1)
gh issue list --state all --label "scout:internalize,scout:integrate,scout:skip" \
--json number,title,body --jq ".[] | select(.body | contains(\"$DOMAIN\"))" 2>/dev/null
```
If found: `[Pre-flight] WARN: Similar URL already scouted in issue #N. Proceed anyway? [Y/n]`
## Display Format
Before execution, show the plan:
```
[Scout] {url}
├── Phase 1: Fetch & Summarize
├── Phase 2: Load Project Philosophy
├── Phase 3: Fit Analysis (sonnet)
└── Phase 4: Issue Creation
Estimated: ~1 min | Cost: ~$0.5-1.5
Execute? [Y/n]
```
## 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
### 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
Spawn 1 sonnet agent with 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
- escalation: true/false (INTERNALIZE + M/L effort = true)
```
**Output**: Structured verdict with rationale.
### Phase 4: Issue Creation
1. Ensure scout labels exist (defensive, idempotent):
```bash
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:
```bash
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:
```bash
gh issue close {number} -c "Auto-closed: scout verdict is SKIP"
```
### Issue Body Template
```markdown
## Scout Report: {title}
**Source**: {url}
**Verdict**: {INTERNALIZE / INTEGRATE / SKIP}
**Priority**: {P1 / P2 / P3}
## Summary
{2-3 sentence summary of the external content}
## Philosophy Alignment
| Criterion | Fit | Rationale |
|-----------|-----|-----------|
| Compilation metaphor | {check/cross} | {explanation} |
| Separation of concerns (R006) | {check/cross} | {explanation} |
| Dynamic agent creation | {check/cross} | {explanation} |
| Existing skill overlap | {check/cross} | {overlapping skills list} |
## Recommendation
{Specific integration plan — which skill/agent/guide to create, or why to skip}
## Next Steps
- [ ] {follow-up action 1}
- [ ] {follow-up action 2}
---
Generated by `/scout`
```
## Escalation
When verdict is `INTERNALIZE` and integration effort is M or L:
```
[Advisory] Deep analysis recommended.
└── Consider running: /research {url}
```
## Result Display
```
[Scout Complete] {title}
├── Verdict: {INTERNALIZE / INTEGRATE / SKIP}
├── Priority: {P1 / P2 / P3}
├── Issue: #{number}
└── Escalation: {/research recommended | none}
```
## 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 |
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!