Multi-agent deep source code analysis for architecture, coding style, design patterns, languages, frameworks, libraries, module structure, extension points, and integration readiness. Use when agents must understand a codebase before planning features, refactoring, integration, migration, auditing, or documentation.
Scanned 9/7/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add PolyXGO/HeraSpec --skill sourcecode-analyzer --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Sourcecode Analyzer?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/polyxgo-sourcecode-analyzer)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: sourcecode-analyzer
description: Multi-agent deep source code analysis for architecture, coding style, design patterns, languages, frameworks, libraries, module structure, extension points, and integration readiness. Use when agents must understand a codebase before planning features, refactoring, integration, migration, auditing, or documentation.
projectType: all
---
# Source Code Analyzer
## Objective
Produce a high-confidence architecture and integration analysis of the repository with evidence from real files.
## Scope
Analyze:
- Architecture boundaries and layering
- Framework/CMS/runtime and dependency stack
- Coding style and conventions
- Modules/themes/plugins and extension points
- API surfaces (REST/GraphQL/webhooks/events/CLI/jobs)
- Data layer and configuration model
- Security and operational posture
- Integration capability and constraints
Do not:
- Modify business logic
- Run destructive commands
- Install or upgrade dependencies unless requested
## Required Output
Write a report to `_analytics/structure.md` (or user-provided path) with the exact section order defined in "Report Template".
## Evidence Rules
For every important claim:
- Include concrete evidence (file path, symbol/class/function, and short snippet summary)
- Mark confidence as `High`, `Medium`, or `Low`
- Label statement type:
- `Observed`: Directly confirmed in source
- `Inferred`: Derived from multiple observed facts
- `Assumed`: Plausible but not yet confirmed
Avoid ungrounded conclusions.
## Multi-Agent Orchestration
If subagents are available, split work in parallel:
1. `Architecture lane`
- Map directory topology, layers, modules/plugins/themes
- Identify entry points and dependency direction
2. `Style and design lane`
- Detect naming conventions, folder conventions, patterns, anti-patterns
- Detect coding standards and linting/testing quality gates
3. `Dependency and runtime lane`
- Detect language/runtime/framework versions
- Inventory key libraries and their roles
4. `Integration and security lane`
- Map APIs, events/hooks, queues, cron/jobs, webhooks, third-party SDKs
- Assess authN/authZ, input validation, secrets handling, and attack surface
Coordinator responsibilities:
- Normalize lane outputs
- Resolve contradictions
- Produce one final report with evidence and confidence
If subagents are unavailable, execute the same lanes sequentially.
## Workflow
### Step 0 — Knowledge Lookup (Pre-Analysis)
Before starting full analysis, check if pre-analyzed knowledge exists:
1. Check if `heraspec/knowledge/index.json` exists in the project
2. Read all entries and match against the current project:
- For `file-contains` signals: check if the file exists AND contains the specified string
- For `directory-exists` signals: check if the directory exists
- Each matched signal = +1 to the match score
3. If `score >= minMatchScore` for any entry:
- Read the corresponding `structure.md` from `heraspec/knowledge/<knowledgePath>/`
- Use it as the **baseline analysis** — skip redundant Steps 1-8 for sections already covered
- Focus only on **project-specific differences** (custom plugins, configs, .env, custom code)
- Output: merge baseline knowledge + project-specific delta into final report
4. Also check `heraspec/knowledge/custom/index.json` for project-specific knowledge entries
5. If no match found in either index: proceed with full analysis from Step 1
Knowledge hierarchy: `heraspec/knowledge/<category>/<runtime>/<framework>/<cms>/`
### Step 1 - Baseline Metadata
Read root metadata first:
- `composer.json`, `composer.lock`
- `package.json`, lockfiles
- `docker*`, `Makefile`, CI configs
- `.env.example`, config directories
Capture:
- Language/runtime versions
- Framework/CMS versions
- Build and deployment model
### Step 2 - Repository Topology
Map major folders and responsibilities:
- Core/domain/infrastructure boundaries
- Plugin/module/theme architecture
- Shared libraries and cross-cutting concerns
- Bootstrapping and entry points
### Step 3 - Architectural Patterns
Identify and evaluate:
- Layered/hexagonal/modular/monolith/microservice patterns
- Service container/DI usage
- Event-driven flows
- Boundaries and coupling hotspots
### Step 4 - Coding Style and Design Conventions
Inspect representative files from each major layer:
- Naming conventions (class/function/file)
- Folder and namespace strategy
- Error handling patterns
- Test style and coverage signals
- Static analysis/lint/format rules
### Step 5 - Extension Model
Map extensibility mechanisms:
- Hooks/filters/events/listeners
- Plugin/module registration and lifecycle
- Theme/template override model
- Custom providers, middleware, policies
### Step 6 - API and Interaction Surfaces
Inventory internal and external interfaces:
- REST/GraphQL routes and controllers
- Command bus, queues, jobs, schedulers
- CLI commands, webhooks, callbacks
- Public SDK/service abstractions
### Step 7 - Data and State
Analyze:
- ORM/data access strategy
- Migration and seeding patterns
- Cache/session/queue drivers
- Transaction boundaries and consistency risks
### Step 8 - Security and Compliance Signals
Check:
- Authentication and authorization model
- CSRF/XSS/SQLi protections
- Secrets and credential handling
- Rate limiting and abuse protection
- Audit logging and sensitive operation traces
### Step 9 - Integration Readiness
Evaluate integration capability across:
- Data integration
- API integration
- Event integration
- UI/theme integration
- Deployment/infra integration
For each integration type, summarize:
- Available entry points
- Required adapters
- Estimated complexity (`Low`/`Medium`/`High`)
- Major risks and mitigations
### Step 10 - Synthesis
Consolidate findings into one report, prioritize evidence-backed conclusions, and list unknowns that block confidence.
## Report Template
Use this exact section order in `_analytics/structure.md`:
1. `Executive Summary`
2. `Technology Profile`
3. `Repository Topology`
4. `Architecture and Dependency Flow`
5. `Coding Style and Conventions`
6. `Extension Points (Modules/Themes/Plugins/Hooks)`
7. `API and Interaction Surfaces`
8. `Data Model and State Management`
9. `Security Posture`
10. `Integration Capability Matrix`
11. `Strengths, Weaknesses, Risks`
12. `Top 10 Evidence Items`
13. `Unknowns and Verification Plan`
14. `Recommended Next Actions (30/60/90 day)`
## Integration Capability Matrix Format
Use one row per integration domain:
| Domain | Entry Points | Required Adapters | Complexity | Risks | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Domains to include:
- External APIs
- Authentication/SSO
- Payment
- Messaging/Queue
- Storage/CDN
- Observability
- Admin/UI customization
- Content/data migration
## Completion Checklist
Complete the skill execution only when all conditions are met:
- Report file exists at target path
- Every critical claim has evidence
- Assumptions are explicitly marked
- Integration matrix is complete
- Top risks include mitigation guidance
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!