claudex-setup 1.16.0 → 1.16.2

package/content/launch-posts.md

@@ -1,159 +1,226 @@
-# Launch Posts — Ready to Publish
+# Launch Posts — Proof-Backed Distribution Assets
+
+**Status:** Complete — every asset below is anchored in measured proof, a canonical artifact, or a verified runtime surface  
+**Date:** 2026-04-03
+
+## Shared Proof Anchors
+
+Use these links as the canonical sources behind public claims:
+
+- Proof artifact index: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
+- CLAUDEX self-dogfood trace: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/claudex-self-dogfood-proof-trace-2026-04-03.md
+- VTCLE case study: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-vtcle-2026-04-03.md
+- Social case study: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-social-2026-04-03.md
+- Polymiro case study: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-polymiro-2026-04-03.md
+- Public proof metrics source: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/claudex-proof-metrics-source-2026-04-03.md
+
+Measured-result boundary to preserve:
+
+- before/after scores were measured with `claudex-setup@1.10.3` on `2026-04-03`
+- current npm latest is `1.16.1`
+- current product surface is `85 checks`
 
 ## Post 1: Reddit r/ClaudeAI
 
-**Title:** I built a tool that audits your project for Claude Code optimization — scores you 0-100
+**Title:** I built a CLI that audits your Claude Code setup — 85 checks, measured on 4 real repos
 
 **Body:**
-After cataloging 1,107 Claude Code entries and verifying 948 of them with evidence, I built a CLI that checks if your project is actually set up to get the most out of Claude Code. It runs 84 checks across CLAUDE.md, hooks, commands, agents, diagrams, and more.
+I built a zero-dependency CLI that audits how well a repo is set up for Claude Code.
 
-I tested it on 4 real repos. A FastAPI marketing engine went from 46 to 64. A React Native social app went from 40 to 48. A Polymiro project jumped from 35 to 48. The CLAUDEX catalog repo itself: 62 to 90.
+It checks `85` things across `CLAUDE.md`, hooks, commands, agents, skills, MCP config, permissions, diagrams, and verification loops.
 
-```
+Measured on `2026-04-03` with `claudex-setup@1.10.3`:
+- CLAUDEX: `62 -> 90`
+- VTCLE: `46 -> 64`
+- Social: `40 -> 48`
+- Polymiro: `35 -> 48`
+
+```bash
 npx claudex-setup
 ```
 
-Then `npx claudex-setup setup` auto-creates everything that's missing, tailored to your stack (React, Python, TypeScript, etc).
+It starts trust-first:
+- audit first
+- plan / suggest-only before writes
+- apply only what you approve
+- rollback artifacts for every applied batch
 
-Zero dependencies. No API keys. Runs entirely local.
+Zero dependencies. No API keys. Runs local.
 
 GitHub: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex-setup
 
-Would love feedback!
+Proof and case studies:
+- https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
+- https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-vtcle-2026-04-03.md
+- https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-social-2026-04-03.md
+- https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-polymiro-2026-04-03.md
+
+Would love feedback on what checks or rollout surfaces are still missing.
+
+**Evidence anchor:** proof artifact index + 3 external case studies + current proof source
 
 ---
 
 ## Post 2: Reddit r/ChatGPTCoding
 
-**Title:** Your Claude Code project is probably running at 10% efficiency. Here's how to check.
+**Title:** Most Claude Code repos are missing the safety layer, not the model
 
 **Body:**
-I spent weeks cataloging every Claude Code feature, technique, and best practice — 1,107 total, 948 verified with real evidence.
-
-Turns out most projects are missing basic stuff that makes a huge difference:
-- No CLAUDE.md (Claude doesn't know your project conventions)
-- No hooks (no auto-lint, no auto-test)
-- No custom commands (repeating the same prompts manually)
-- No Mermaid diagrams (wasting 73% more tokens on prose descriptions)
-
-I tested 4 real repos with 84 checks. Before optimization: scores ranged from 35 to 62. After: 48 to 90. A VTCLE FastAPI project jumped from 46→64 just from adding missing hooks and commands.
-
-```
+The interesting problem with Claude Code is not "can it write code?".
+It's "is the repo actually set up so Claude can work safely and predictably?".
+
+I built `claudex-setup` to audit that surface:
+- `85` checks
+- zero dependencies
+- local-only by default
+- trust-first flow: audit -> plan -> apply -> rollback
+
+Measured on 4 real repos:
+- FastAPI repo: `46 -> 64`
+- React Native repo: `40 -> 48`
+- Python/Docker repo: `35 -> 48`
+- research engine repo: `62 -> 90`
+
+```bash
 npx claudex-setup
 ```
 
-Scores your project 0-100, tells you exactly what to fix, and can auto-apply everything.
+The most common misses were not exotic:
+- no deny rules
+- no secrets protection
+- no mermaid architecture
+- no hooks registered in settings
+
+Proof:
+https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
 
-Free, open source, zero dependencies: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex-setup
+**Evidence anchor:** measured before/after traces + common gap summary from public proof set
 
 ---
 
 ## Post 3: Dev.to Article
 
-**Title:** 1,107 Claude Code Entries: What I Learned Building the Most Comprehensive Catalog
+**Title:** What 4 Real Repos Taught Me About Claude Code Readiness
 
 **Body (excerpt):**
-I set out to catalog every single Claude Code capability, technique, and best practice. After repeated research cycles, I have 1,107 entries — 948 verified with real evidence. I packaged this into an 84-check CLI audit and tested it on 4 real projects — scores before optimization ranged from 35 to 62, and after: 48 to 90.
+I tested `claudex-setup` on 4 real repos and the pattern was clear:
 
-Here are the top 10 things most developers are missing:
+- the best teams still miss permission deny rules
+- mature repos often have hooks in files but not actually registered
+- non-standard settings formats are a real adoption trap
+- shared `settings.json` matters more than personal local overrides
 
-1. **CLAUDE.md** — Claude reads this at the start of every session. Without it, Claude doesn't know your build commands, code style, or project rules.
+Measured on `2026-04-03` with `claudex-setup@1.10.3`:
+- CLAUDEX: `62 -> 90`
+- VTCLE: `46 -> 64`
+- Social: `40 -> 48`
+- Polymiro: `35 -> 48`
 
-2. **Mermaid diagrams** — A Mermaid architecture diagram saves 73% tokens compared to describing your project in prose.
+The product today is strongest as:
 
-3. **Hooks** — Auto-lint after every edit. Auto-test before every commit. Hooks fire 100% of the time, CLAUDE.md rules fire ~80%.
+`audit -> plan -> safe apply -> governance -> benchmark`
 
-4. **Custom commands** — `/test`, `/deploy`, `/review` — package your repeated workflows.
+Not a code generator. Not an MCP installer. A trust layer for Claude Code repos.
 
-5. **Verification loops** — Tell Claude how to verify its own work. Include test commands in CLAUDE.md.
+Proof packet:
+https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
 
-6. **Path-specific rules** — Different conventions for frontend vs backend files.
-
-7. **XML tags** — `<constraints>`, `<validation>` in CLAUDE.md = unambiguous instructions.
-
-8. **Custom agents** — Security reviewer, test writer — specialized subagents for focused tasks.
-
-9. **Skills** — Domain-specific workflows that load on demand, not every session.
-
-10. **MCP servers** — Connect Claude to your database, ticket system, Slack.
-
-I packaged this into a CLI that checks your project:
-```
-npx claudex-setup
-```
-
-Full catalog: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex-setup
+**Evidence anchor:** proof artifact index + case-study docs + current proof source
 
 ---
 
 ## Post 4: Twitter/X Thread
 
 **Tweet 1:**
-I cataloged 1,107 Claude Code entries and verified 948 of them with evidence.
-
-Most projects use less than 5% of what Claude Code can do.
+I built a zero-dependency CLI that audits Claude Code readiness across `85` checks.
 
-Tested on 4 real repos — a React Native app scored 40, a FastAPI engine scored 46. After auto-setup: 48 and 64. Here's the free 84-check audit:
+Measured on 4 real repos:
+- `62 -> 90`
+- `46 -> 64`
+- `40 -> 48`
+- `35 -> 48`
 
-npx claudex-setup
+`npx claudex-setup`
 
-Thread 🧵👇
+Proof: github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
 
 **Tweet 2:**
-The #1 thing you're probably missing: CLAUDE.md
-
-It's a file Claude reads at the start of every session. Without it, Claude doesn't know your:
-- Build commands
-- Code style
-- Testing framework
-- Project architecture
+The most common misses were boring and important:
+- no deny rules
+- no secrets protection
+- no mermaid diagram
+- no hooks registered in settings
 
-Takes 2 minutes to create. Impact: massive.
+It is much more "trust layer" than "AI magic".
 
 **Tweet 3:**
-#2: Mermaid diagrams in CLAUDE.md
-
-A few hundred tokens of Mermaid syntax conveys what takes thousands of tokens in prose.
-
-73% token savings = faster responses, lower cost, better context.
+What it does well today:
+- audit first
+- suggest / plan before writes
+- apply selectively
+- emit rollback artifacts
+- benchmark on isolated copy
 
 **Tweet 4:**
-#3: Hooks > CLAUDE.md rules
-
-CLAUDE.md instructions = ~80% compliance
-Hooks = 100% enforcement
+Best result so far:
+- CLAUDEX self-dogfood: `62 -> 90`
 
-Auto-lint after edits. Block commits without tests. Prevent force-push.
+Best external proof:
+- VTCLE: `46 -> 64`
 
-Hooks are deterministic. Instructions are advisory.
+Case studies:
+- github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-vtcle-2026-04-03.md
+- github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-social-2026-04-03.md
+- github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-polymiro-2026-04-03.md
 
 **Tweet 5:**
-Want to check your project in 10 seconds?
+Measured results were captured on `claudex-setup@1.10.3` on `2026-04-03`.
+Current npm latest is `1.16.1`, so exact scores can move slightly, but the proof packet is explicit about that boundary.
 
-npx claudex-setup
-
-Scores 0-100. Shows what's missing. Auto-fixes with `setup`.
-
-Free. Open source. Zero dependencies.
-
-https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex-setup
+**Evidence anchor:** proof artifact index + per-repo traces
 
 ---
 
 ## Post 5: Hacker News (Show HN)
 
-**Title:** Show HN: claudex-setup – Audit any project for Claude Code optimization (1,107 entries)
+**Title:** Show HN: claudex-setup — audit Claude Code readiness with 85 checks
 
 **Body:**
-I built a CLI tool that scores your project against Claude Code best practices.
-
-After researching 1,107 entries (948 verified with evidence), I tested 4 real repos with 84 checks. Scores before optimization: 35–62. After auto-setup: 48–90. The biggest jump was a research catalog repo going from 62 to 90.
-
-npx claudex-setup → audit (84 checks, 0-100 score)
-npx claudex-setup setup → auto-fix
-
-Detects your stack (React, Python, TS, Rust, Go, etc) and tailors recommendations.
-
-Zero dependencies, no API keys, runs locally.
-
-https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex-setup
+I built a CLI that audits how well a repo is set up for Claude Code.
+
+This is not a code-quality linter and not an MCP installer.
+It focuses on Claude workflow quality:
+- `CLAUDE.md`
+- hooks
+- commands
+- agents
+- skills
+- MCP config
+- permissions / deny rules
+- diagrams
+- verification loops
+
+Core workflow:
+- `npx claudex-setup`
+- `npx claudex-setup suggest-only`
+- `npx claudex-setup plan`
+- `npx claudex-setup apply`
+- `npx claudex-setup benchmark`
+
+Measured on 4 real repos on `2026-04-03` with `claudex-setup@1.10.3`:
+- CLAUDEX: `62 -> 90`
+- VTCLE: `46 -> 64`
+- Social: `40 -> 48`
+- Polymiro: `35 -> 48`
+
+Trust decisions that mattered:
+- zero dependencies
+- audit before write
+- rollback artifacts
+- cross-platform Node hooks
+- explicit proof packets instead of vague claims
+
+Proof packet:
+https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
+
+**Evidence anchor:** proof artifact index + current npm proof source

package/package.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "claudex-setup",
-  "version": "1.16.0",
-  "description": "Score your repo's Claude Code setup against 84 checks. See gaps, apply fixes selectively with rollback, govern hooks and permissions, and benchmark impact — without breaking existing config.",
+  "version": "1.16.2",
+  "description": "Score your repo's Claude Code setup against 85 checks. See gaps, apply fixes selectively with rollback, govern hooks and permissions, and benchmark impact — without breaking existing config.",
   "main": "src/index.js",
   "bin": {
     "claudex-setup": "bin/cli.js"

package/src/activity.js

@@ -21,10 +21,12 @@ function ensureArtifactDirs(dir) {
   const activityDir = path.join(root, 'activity');
   const rollbackDir = path.join(root, 'rollbacks');
   const snapshotDir = path.join(root, 'snapshots');
+  const outcomesDir = path.join(root, 'outcomes');
   fs.mkdirSync(activityDir, { recursive: true });
   fs.mkdirSync(rollbackDir, { recursive: true });
   fs.mkdirSync(snapshotDir, { recursive: true });
-  return { root, activityDir, rollbackDir, snapshotDir };
+  fs.mkdirSync(outcomesDir, { recursive: true });
+  return { root, activityDir, rollbackDir, snapshotDir, outcomesDir };
 }
 
 function writeJson(filePath, payload) {
@@ -322,6 +324,192 @@ function exportTrendReport(dir) {
   return lines.join('\n');
 }
 
+function readOutcomeIndex(dir) {
+  const indexPath = path.join(dir, '.claude', 'claudex-setup', 'outcomes', 'index.json');
+  if (!fs.existsSync(indexPath)) return [];
+  try {
+    const entries = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(indexPath, 'utf8'));
+    return Array.isArray(entries) ? entries : [];
+  } catch {
+    return [];
+  }
+}
+
+function updateOutcomeIndex(outcomesDir, record) {
+  const indexPath = path.join(outcomesDir, 'index.json');
+  let entries = [];
+
+  if (fs.existsSync(indexPath)) {
+    try {
+      entries = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(indexPath, 'utf8'));
+      if (!Array.isArray(entries)) entries = [];
+    } catch {
+      entries = [];
+    }
+  }
+
+  entries.push(record);
+  const MAX_INDEX_ENTRIES = 500;
+  if (entries.length > MAX_INDEX_ENTRIES) {
+    entries = entries.slice(entries.length - MAX_INDEX_ENTRIES);
+  }
+  fs.writeFileSync(indexPath, JSON.stringify(entries, null, 2), 'utf8');
+}
+
+function normalizeOutcomeStatus(value) {
+  const normalized = `${value || ''}`.trim().toLowerCase();
+  if (!['accepted', 'rejected', 'deferred'].includes(normalized)) {
+    throw new Error('feedback status must be one of: accepted, rejected, deferred');
+  }
+  return normalized;
+}
+
+function normalizeOutcomeEffect(value) {
+  const normalized = `${value || ''}`.trim().toLowerCase();
+  if (!['positive', 'neutral', 'negative'].includes(normalized)) {
+    throw new Error('feedback effect must be one of: positive, neutral, negative');
+  }
+  return normalized;
+}
+
+function recordRecommendationOutcome(dir, payload) {
+  const key = `${payload.key || ''}`.trim();
+  if (!key) {
+    throw new Error('feedback requires a recommendation key');
+  }
+
+  const status = normalizeOutcomeStatus(payload.status);
+  const effect = normalizeOutcomeEffect(payload.effect || 'neutral');
+  const scoreDelta = Number.isFinite(payload.scoreDelta) ? payload.scoreDelta : (
+    payload.scoreDelta === null || payload.scoreDelta === undefined || payload.scoreDelta === ''
+      ? null
+      : Number(payload.scoreDelta)
+  );
+
+  if (scoreDelta !== null && !Number.isFinite(scoreDelta)) {
+    throw new Error('feedback scoreDelta must be a number when provided');
+  }
+
+  const id = timestampId();
+  const { outcomesDir } = ensureArtifactDirs(dir);
+  const filePath = path.join(outcomesDir, `${id}.json`);
+  const record = {
+    id,
+    createdAt: new Date().toISOString(),
+    key,
+    status,
+    effect,
+    source: `${payload.source || 'manual-cli'}`.trim() || 'manual-cli',
+    notes: `${payload.notes || ''}`.trim(),
+    scoreDelta,
+  };
+
+  writeJson(filePath, record);
+  updateOutcomeIndex(outcomesDir, {
+    ...record,
+    relativePath: path.relative(dir, filePath),
+  });
+
+  return {
+    id,
+    filePath,
+    relativePath: path.relative(dir, filePath),
+    record,
+  };
+}
+
+function summarizeOutcomeEntries(entries = []) {
+  const byKey = {};
+
+  for (const entry of entries) {
+    if (!entry || !entry.key) continue;
+    const bucket = byKey[entry.key] || {
+      key: entry.key,
+      total: 0,
+      accepted: 0,
+      rejected: 0,
+      deferred: 0,
+      positive: 0,
+      neutral: 0,
+      negative: 0,
+      scoreDeltaTotal: 0,
+      scoreDeltaCount: 0,
+      latestAt: null,
+    };
+
+    bucket.total += 1;
+    if (bucket[entry.status] !== undefined) bucket[entry.status] += 1;
+    if (bucket[entry.effect] !== undefined) bucket[entry.effect] += 1;
+    if (Number.isFinite(entry.scoreDelta)) {
+      bucket.scoreDeltaTotal += entry.scoreDelta;
+      bucket.scoreDeltaCount += 1;
+    }
+    if (!bucket.latestAt || new Date(entry.createdAt) > new Date(bucket.latestAt)) {
+      bucket.latestAt = entry.createdAt;
+    }
+
+    byKey[entry.key] = bucket;
+  }
+
+  for (const bucket of Object.values(byKey)) {
+    bucket.avgScoreDelta = bucket.scoreDeltaCount > 0
+      ? Number((bucket.scoreDeltaTotal / bucket.scoreDeltaCount).toFixed(2))
+      : null;
+    bucket.evidenceClass = bucket.total > 0 ? 'measured' : 'estimated';
+  }
+
+  return {
+    totalEntries: entries.length,
+    byKey,
+    keys: Object.keys(byKey).sort(),
+  };
+}
+
+function getRecommendationOutcomeSummary(dir) {
+  return summarizeOutcomeEntries(readOutcomeIndex(dir));
+}
+
+function getRecommendationAdjustment(summaryByKey, key) {
+  const bucket = summaryByKey && summaryByKey[key];
+  if (!bucket) return 0;
+
+  let adjustment = 0;
+  adjustment += bucket.accepted * 2;
+  adjustment += bucket.positive * 3;
+  adjustment -= bucket.rejected * 3;
+  adjustment -= bucket.negative * 4;
+
+  if (Number.isFinite(bucket.avgScoreDelta)) {
+    if (bucket.avgScoreDelta > 0) adjustment += Math.min(4, Math.round(bucket.avgScoreDelta / 4));
+    if (bucket.avgScoreDelta < 0) adjustment -= Math.min(4, Math.round(Math.abs(bucket.avgScoreDelta) / 4));
+  }
+
+  if (adjustment > 8) return 8;
+  if (adjustment < -8) return -8;
+  return adjustment;
+}
+
+function formatRecommendationOutcomeSummary(dir) {
+  const summary = getRecommendationOutcomeSummary(dir);
+  if (summary.totalEntries === 0) {
+    return 'No recommendation outcomes recorded yet. Use `npx claudex-setup feedback --key permissionDeny --status accepted --effect positive` after a real run.';
+  }
+
+  const lines = [
+    'Recommendation outcome summary:',
+    '',
+  ];
+
+  for (const key of summary.keys) {
+    const bucket = summary.byKey[key];
+    const avg = Number.isFinite(bucket.avgScoreDelta) ? ` | avg score delta ${bucket.avgScoreDelta >= 0 ? '+' : ''}${bucket.avgScoreDelta}` : '';
+    const adjustment = getRecommendationAdjustment(summary.byKey, key);
+    lines.push(`  ${key}: total ${bucket.total} | accepted ${bucket.accepted} | rejected ${bucket.rejected} | deferred ${bucket.deferred} | positive ${bucket.positive} | negative ${bucket.negative}${avg} | ranking ${adjustment >= 0 ? '+' : ''}${adjustment}`);
+  }
+
+  return lines.join('\n');
+}
+
 module.exports = {
   ensureArtifactDirs,
   writeActivityArtifact,
@@ -332,4 +520,10 @@ module.exports = {
   compareLatest,
   formatHistory,
   exportTrendReport,
+  readOutcomeIndex,
+  recordRecommendationOutcome,
+  summarizeOutcomeEntries,
+  getRecommendationOutcomeSummary,
+  getRecommendationAdjustment,
+  formatRecommendationOutcomeSummary,
 };

package/src/analyze.js

@@ -244,12 +244,15 @@ function toGaps(results) {
 }
 
 function toRecommendations(auditResult) {
-  const failed = auditResult.results
-    .filter(r => r.passed === false)
-    .sort((a, b) => {
-      const order = { critical: 3, high: 2, medium: 1, low: 0 };
-      return (order[b.impact] || 0) - (order[a.impact] || 0);
-    });
+  const failed = auditResult.results.filter(r => r.passed === false);
+  const topActionOrder = new Map((auditResult.topNextActions || []).map((item, index) => [item.key, index]));
+  failed.sort((a, b) => {
+    const rankedA = topActionOrder.has(a.key) ? topActionOrder.get(a.key) : Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER;
+    const rankedB = topActionOrder.has(b.key) ? topActionOrder.get(b.key) : Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER;
+    if (rankedA !== rankedB) return rankedA - rankedB;
+    const order = { critical: 3, high: 2, medium: 1, low: 0 };
+    return (order[b.impact] || 0) - (order[a.impact] || 0);
+  });
 
   return failed.slice(0, 10).map((r, index) => ({
     priority: index + 1,
@@ -259,6 +262,8 @@ function toRecommendations(auditResult) {
     module: moduleFromCategory(r.category),
     risk: riskFromImpact(r.impact),
     why: r.fix,
+    evidenceClass: (auditResult.topNextActions || []).find(item => item.key === r.key)?.evidenceClass || 'estimated',
+    rankingAdjustment: (auditResult.topNextActions || []).find(item => item.key === r.key)?.rankingAdjustment || 0,
   }));
 }