Analyze an arbitrary codebase to auto-detect workflows, data pipelines, and file dependencies using putior's put_auto() engine. Produces an annotation plan that maps detected I/O patterns to source files across 30+ supported languages with 902 auto-detection patterns. Use when onboarding onto an unfamiliar codebase to understand data flow, starting putior integration in a project without existing annotations, auditing a project's data pipeline before documentation, or preparing an annotation ...
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add pjt222/agent-almanac --skill analyze-codebase-workflow --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Analyze Codebase Workflow?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/pjt222-analyze-codebase-workflow-3c9d1bae)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: analyze-codebase-workflow
locale: caveman
source_locale: en
source_commit: 82c77053
fence_basis_commit: 82c77053
translator: "Julius Brussee homage — caveman"
translation_date: "2026-04-19"
description: >
Analyze an arbitrary codebase to auto-detect workflows, data pipelines,
and file dependencies using putior's put_auto() engine. Produces an
annotation plan that maps detected I/O patterns to source files across
30+ supported languages with 902 auto-detection patterns. Use when
onboarding onto an unfamiliar codebase to understand data flow, starting
putior integration in a project without existing annotations, auditing a
project's data pipeline before documentation, or preparing an annotation
plan before running annotate-source-files.
license: MIT
allowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash Grep Glob
metadata:
author: Philipp Thoss
version: "1.0"
domain: workflow-visualization
complexity: intermediate
language: multi
tags: putior, workflow, analysis, auto-detect, polyglot, data-pipeline
---
# Analyze Codebase Workflow
Survey arbitrary repository. Auto-detect data flows, file I/O, script dependencies. Produce structured annotation plan for manual refinement.
## When Use
- Onboarding onto unfamiliar codebase, need to understand data flow
- Starting putior integration in project with no PUT annotations yet
- Auditing existing project's data pipeline before documentation
- Preparing annotation plan before running `annotate-source-files`
## Inputs
- **Required**: Path to repository or source directory to analyze
- **Optional**: Specific subdirectories to focus on (default: entire repo)
- **Optional**: Languages to include or exclude (default: all detected)
- **Optional**: Detection scope: inputs only, outputs only, or both (default: both + dependencies)
## Steps
### Step 1: Survey Repository Structure
Identify source files and their languages. Understand what putior can analyze.
```r
library(putior)
# List all supported languages and their extensions
list_supported_languages()
list_supported_languages(detection_only = TRUE) # Only languages with auto-detection
# Get supported extensions
exts <- get_supported_extensions()
```
Use file listing to understand repo composition:
```bash
# Count files by extension in the target directory
find /path/to/repo -type f | sed 's/.*\.//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -20
```
**Got:** List of file extensions present in repo, with counts. Map against `get_supported_extensions()` to know coverage.
**If fail:** Repo has no files matching supported extensions? Putior cannot auto-detect workflows. Consider whether language is supported but files use non-standard extensions.
### Step 2: Check Language Detection Coverage
For each detected language, verify auto-detection pattern availability.
```r
# Check which languages have auto-detection patterns (18 languages, 902 patterns)
detection_langs <- list_supported_languages(detection_only = TRUE)
cat("Languages with auto-detection:\n")
print(detection_langs)
# Get pattern counts for specific languages found in the repo
for (lang in c("r", "python", "javascript", "sql", "dockerfile", "makefile")) {
patterns <- get_detection_patterns(lang)
cat(sprintf("%s: %d input, %d output, %d dependency patterns\n",
lang,
length(patterns$input),
length(patterns$output),
length(patterns$dependency)
))
}
```
**Got:** Pattern counts printed for each language. R has 124 patterns, Python 159, JavaScript 71, etc.
**If fail:** Language returns no patterns? Supports manual annotations but not auto-detection. Plan to annotate those files manually.
### Step 3: Run Auto-Detection
Execute `put_auto()` on target directory to discover workflow elements.
```r
# Full auto-detection
workflow <- put_auto("./src/",
detect_inputs = TRUE,
detect_outputs = TRUE,
detect_dependencies = TRUE
)
# Exclude build scripts and test helpers from scanning
workflow <- put_auto("./src/",
detect_inputs = TRUE,
detect_outputs = TRUE,
detect_dependencies = TRUE,
exclude = c("build-", "test_helper")
)
# View detected workflow nodes
print(workflow)
# Check node count
cat(sprintf("Detected %d workflow nodes\n", nrow(workflow)))
```
For large repos, analyze subdirectories incrementally:
```r
# Analyze specific subdirectories
etl_workflow <- put_auto("./src/etl/")
api_workflow <- put_auto("./src/api/")
```
**Got:** Data frame with columns including `id`, `label`, `input`, `output`, `source_file`. Each row represents detected workflow step.
**If fail:** Result empty? Source files may not contain recognizable I/O patterns. Try enabling debug logging: `workflow <- put_auto("./src/", log_level = "DEBUG")` to see which files scanned and which patterns match.
### Step 4: Generate Initial Diagram
Visualize auto-detected workflow. Assess coverage and identify gaps.
```r
# Generate diagram from auto-detected workflow
cat(put_diagram(workflow, theme = "github"))
# With source file info for traceability
cat(put_diagram(workflow, show_source_info = TRUE))
# Save to file for review
writeLines(put_diagram(workflow, theme = "github"), "workflow-auto.md")
```
**Got:** Mermaid flowchart showing detected nodes connected by data flow edges. Nodes labeled with meaningful function/file names.
**If fail:** Diagram shows disconnected nodes? Auto-detection found I/O patterns but couldn't infer connections. Normal — connections derived from matching output filenames to input filenames. Annotation plan (next step) addresses gaps.
### Step 5: Produce Annotation Plan
Generate structured plan documenting what found and what needs manual annotation.
```r
# Generate annotation suggestions
put_generate("./src/", style = "single")
# For multiline style (more readable for complex workflows)
put_generate("./src/", style = "multiline")
# Copy suggestions to clipboard for easy pasting
put_generate("./src/", output = "clipboard")
```
Document plan with coverage assessment:
```markdown
## Annotation Plan
### Auto-Detected (no manual work needed)
- `src/etl/extract.R` — 3 inputs, 2 outputs detected
- `src/etl/transform.py` — 1 input, 1 output detected
### Needs Manual Annotation
- `src/api/handler.js` — Language supported but no I/O patterns matched
- `src/config/setup.sh` — Only 12 shell patterns; complex logic missed
### Not Supported
- `src/legacy/process.f90` — Fortran not in detection languages
### Recommended Connections
- extract.R output `data.csv` → transform.py input `data.csv` (auto-linked)
- transform.py output `clean.parquet` → load.R input (needs annotation)
```
**Got:** Clear plan separating auto-detected files from those needing manual annotation. Specific recommendations for each file.
**If fail:** `put_generate()` produces no output? Ensure directory path correct and contains source files in supported languages.
## Checks
- [ ] `put_auto()` executes without errors on target directory
- [ ] Detected workflow has at least one node (unless repo has no recognizable I/O)
- [ ] `put_diagram()` produces valid Mermaid code from auto-detected workflow
- [ ] `put_generate()` produces annotation suggestions for files with detected patterns
- [ ] Annotation plan document created with coverage assessment
## Pitfalls
- **Scanning too broadly**: Running `put_auto(".")` on repo root may include `node_modules/`, `.git/`, `venv/`, etc. Target specific source directories.
- **Expecting full coverage**: Auto-detection finds file I/O and library calls, not business logic. 40-60% coverage rate typical; rest needs manual annotation.
- **Ignoring dependencies**: `detect_dependencies = TRUE` flag catches `source()`, `import`, `require()` calls that link scripts together. Disabling it loses cross-file connections.
- **Language mismatch**: Files with non-standard extensions (e.g., `.R` vs `.r`, `.jsx` vs `.js`) may not be detected. Use `get_comment_prefix()` to check if extension recognized. Note extensionless files like `Dockerfile` and `Makefile` supported via exact filename matching.
- **Large repos**: For repos with 100+ source files, analyze by module/directory to keep diagrams readable.
## See Also
- `install-putior` — prerequisite: putior must be installed first
- `annotate-source-files` — next step: add manual annotations based on plan
- `generate-workflow-diagram` — generate final diagram after annotation complete
- `configure-putior-mcp` — use MCP tools for interactive analysis sessions
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!