codeply-cli 0.3.0 → 0.4.0

package/skills/workspace-surface-audit/SKILL.md

@@ -1,126 +1,126 @@
----
-name: workspace-surface-audit
-description: Audit the active repo, MCP servers, plugins, connectors, env surfaces, and harness setup, then recommend the highest-value ECC-native skills, hooks, agents, and operator workflows. Use when the user wants help setting up Claude Code or understanding what capabilities are actually available in their environment.
-metadata:
-  origin: ECC
----
-
-# Workspace Surface Audit
-
-Read-only audit skill for answering the question "what can this workspace and machine actually do right now, and what should we add or enable next?"
-
-This is the ECC-native answer to setup-audit plugins. It does not modify files unless the user explicitly asks for follow-up implementation.
-
-## When to Use
-
-- User says "set up Claude Code", "recommend automations", "what plugins or MCPs should I use?", or "what am I missing?"
-- Auditing a machine or repo before installing more skills, hooks, or connectors
-- Comparing official marketplace plugins against ECC-native coverage
-- Reviewing `.env`, `.mcp.json`, plugin settings, or connected-app surfaces to find missing workflow layers
-- Deciding whether a capability should be a skill, hook, agent, MCP, or external connector
-
-## Non-Negotiable Rules
-
-- Never print secret values. Surface only provider names, capability names, file paths, and whether a key or config exists.
-- Prefer ECC-native workflows over generic "install another plugin" advice when ECC can reasonably own the surface.
-- Treat external plugins as benchmarks and inspiration, not authoritative product boundaries.
-- Separate three things clearly:
-  - already available now
-  - available but not wrapped well in ECC
-  - not available and would require a new integration
-
-## Audit Inputs
-
-Inspect only the files and settings needed to answer the question well:
-
-1. Repo surface
-   - `package.json`, lockfiles, language markers, framework config, `README.md`
-   - `.mcp.json`, `.lsp.json`, `.claude/settings*.json`, `.codex/*`
-   - `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, install manifests, hook configs
-2. Environment surface
-   - `.env*` files in the active repo and obvious adjacent ECC workspaces
-   - Surface only key names such as `STRIPE_API_KEY`, `TWILIO_AUTH_TOKEN`, `FAL_KEY`
-3. Connected tool surface
-   - Installed plugins, enabled connectors, MCP servers, LSPs, and app integrations
-4. ECC surface
-   - Existing skills, commands, hooks, agents, and install modules that already cover the need
-
-## Audit Process
-
-### Phase 1: Inventory What Exists
-
-Produce a compact inventory:
-
-- active harness targets
-- installed plugins and connected apps
-- configured MCP servers
-- configured LSP servers
-- env-backed services implied by key names
-- existing ECC skills already relevant to the workspace
-
-If a surface exists only as a primitive, call that out. Example:
-
-- "Stripe is available via connected app, but ECC lacks a billing-operator skill"
-- "Google Drive is connected, but there is no ECC-native Google Workspace operator workflow"
-
-### Phase 2: Benchmark Against Official and Installed Surfaces
-
-Compare the workspace against:
-
-- official Claude plugins that overlap with setup, review, docs, design, or workflow quality
-- locally installed plugins in Claude or Codex
-- the user's currently connected app surfaces
-
-Do not just list names. For each comparison, answer:
-
-1. what they actually do
-2. whether ECC already has parity
-3. whether ECC only has primitives
-4. whether ECC is missing the workflow entirely
-
-### Phase 3: Turn Gaps Into ECC Decisions
-
-For every real gap, recommend the correct ECC-native shape:
-
-| Gap Type | Preferred ECC Shape |
-|----------|---------------------|
-| Repeatable operator workflow | Skill |
-| Automatic enforcement or side-effect | Hook |
-| Specialized delegated role | Agent |
-| External tool bridge | MCP server or connector |
-| Install/bootstrap guidance | Setup or audit skill |
-
-Default to user-facing skills that orchestrate existing tools when the need is operational rather than infrastructural.
-
-## Output Format
-
-Return five sections in this order:
-
-1. **Current surface**
-   - what is already usable right now
-2. **Parity**
-   - where ECC already matches or exceeds the benchmark
-3. **Primitive-only gaps**
-   - tools exist, but ECC lacks a clean operator skill
-4. **Missing integrations**
-   - capability not available yet
-5. **Top 3-5 next moves**
-   - concrete ECC-native additions, ordered by impact
-
-## Recommendation Rules
-
-- Recommend at most 1-2 highest-value ideas per category.
-- Favor skills with obvious user intent and business value:
-  - setup audit
-  - billing/customer ops
-  - issue/program ops
-  - Google Workspace ops
-  - deployment/ops control
-- If a connector is company-specific, recommend it only when it is genuinely available or clearly useful to the user's workflow.
-- If ECC already has a strong primitive, propose a wrapper skill instead of inventing a brand-new subsystem.
-
-## Good Outcomes
-
-- The user can immediately see what is connected, what is missing, and what ECC should own next.
-- Recommendations are specific enough to implement in the repo without another discovery pass.
-- The final answer is organized around workflows, not API brands.
+---
+name: workspace-surface-audit
+description: Audit the active repo, MCP servers, plugins, connectors, env surfaces, and harness setup, then recommend the highest-value ECC-native skills, hooks, agents, and operator workflows. Use when the user wants help setting up Claude Code or understanding what capabilities are actually available in their environment.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Workspace Surface Audit
+
+Read-only audit skill for answering the question "what can this workspace and machine actually do right now, and what should we add or enable next?"
+
+This is the ECC-native answer to setup-audit plugins. It does not modify files unless the user explicitly asks for follow-up implementation.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- User says "set up Claude Code", "recommend automations", "what plugins or MCPs should I use?", or "what am I missing?"
+- Auditing a machine or repo before installing more skills, hooks, or connectors
+- Comparing official marketplace plugins against ECC-native coverage
+- Reviewing `.env`, `.mcp.json`, plugin settings, or connected-app surfaces to find missing workflow layers
+- Deciding whether a capability should be a skill, hook, agent, MCP, or external connector
+
+## Non-Negotiable Rules
+
+- Never print secret values. Surface only provider names, capability names, file paths, and whether a key or config exists.
+- Prefer ECC-native workflows over generic "install another plugin" advice when ECC can reasonably own the surface.
+- Treat external plugins as benchmarks and inspiration, not authoritative product boundaries.
+- Separate three things clearly:
+  - already available now
+  - available but not wrapped well in ECC
+  - not available and would require a new integration
+
+## Audit Inputs
+
+Inspect only the files and settings needed to answer the question well:
+
+1. Repo surface
+   - `package.json`, lockfiles, language markers, framework config, `README.md`
+   - `.mcp.json`, `.lsp.json`, `.claude/settings*.json`, `.codex/*`
+   - `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, install manifests, hook configs
+2. Environment surface
+   - `.env*` files in the active repo and obvious adjacent ECC workspaces
+   - Surface only key names such as `STRIPE_API_KEY`, `TWILIO_AUTH_TOKEN`, `FAL_KEY`
+3. Connected tool surface
+   - Installed plugins, enabled connectors, MCP servers, LSPs, and app integrations
+4. ECC surface
+   - Existing skills, commands, hooks, agents, and install modules that already cover the need
+
+## Audit Process
+
+### Phase 1: Inventory What Exists
+
+Produce a compact inventory:
+
+- active harness targets
+- installed plugins and connected apps
+- configured MCP servers
+- configured LSP servers
+- env-backed services implied by key names
+- existing ECC skills already relevant to the workspace
+
+If a surface exists only as a primitive, call that out. Example:
+
+- "Stripe is available via connected app, but ECC lacks a billing-operator skill"
+- "Google Drive is connected, but there is no ECC-native Google Workspace operator workflow"
+
+### Phase 2: Benchmark Against Official and Installed Surfaces
+
+Compare the workspace against:
+
+- official Claude plugins that overlap with setup, review, docs, design, or workflow quality
+- locally installed plugins in Claude or Codex
+- the user's currently connected app surfaces
+
+Do not just list names. For each comparison, answer:
+
+1. what they actually do
+2. whether ECC already has parity
+3. whether ECC only has primitives
+4. whether ECC is missing the workflow entirely
+
+### Phase 3: Turn Gaps Into ECC Decisions
+
+For every real gap, recommend the correct ECC-native shape:
+
+| Gap Type | Preferred ECC Shape |
+|----------|---------------------|
+| Repeatable operator workflow | Skill |
+| Automatic enforcement or side-effect | Hook |
+| Specialized delegated role | Agent |
+| External tool bridge | MCP server or connector |
+| Install/bootstrap guidance | Setup or audit skill |
+
+Default to user-facing skills that orchestrate existing tools when the need is operational rather than infrastructural.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Return five sections in this order:
+
+1. **Current surface**
+   - what is already usable right now
+2. **Parity**
+   - where ECC already matches or exceeds the benchmark
+3. **Primitive-only gaps**
+   - tools exist, but ECC lacks a clean operator skill
+4. **Missing integrations**
+   - capability not available yet
+5. **Top 3-5 next moves**
+   - concrete ECC-native additions, ordered by impact
+
+## Recommendation Rules
+
+- Recommend at most 1-2 highest-value ideas per category.
+- Favor skills with obvious user intent and business value:
+  - setup audit
+  - billing/customer ops
+  - issue/program ops
+  - Google Workspace ops
+  - deployment/ops control
+- If a connector is company-specific, recommend it only when it is genuinely available or clearly useful to the user's workflow.
+- If ECC already has a strong primitive, propose a wrapper skill instead of inventing a brand-new subsystem.
+
+## Good Outcomes
+
+- The user can immediately see what is connected, what is missing, and what ECC should own next.
+- Recommendations are specific enough to implement in the repo without another discovery pass.
+- The final answer is organized around workflows, not API brands.