Source Command Methodology AdvisorCAUTION
The most comprehensive Claude Code guide: agentic workflows, hooks, skills, MCP servers, quizzes, and production-ready templates. 430K+ lines.
Overview
The most comprehensive Claude Code guide: agentic workflows, hooks, skills, MCP servers, quizzes, and production-ready templates. 430K+ lines.
d90170da4369OBSERVED · 2026-10-07Host compatibility
What the documentation claims. We have not run a compatibility test.
| Host | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| codex | mentioned |
What it tells the agent
The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.
--- name: "source-command-methodology-advisor" description: "Analyzes your codebase and asks 3 targeted questions to recommend the right AI-assisted development methodology stack" --- # source-command-methodology-advisor Use this skill when the user asks to run the migrated source command `methodology-advisor`. ## Command Template # Methodology Advisor Analyze this project and recommend the best AI-assisted development methodology stack. Read what you can from the codebase first, then ask only what you cannot infer. **Time**: 2-4 minutes | **Output**: One recommended stack + contextual quick start --- ## Phase 1 — Silent codebase analysis Run these reads silently. Do not output results yet — build an internal picture only. ### 1.1 Project identity ```bash # Config files cat AGENTS.md 2>/dev/null || cat AGENTS.md 2>/dev/null cat package.json 2>/dev/null | grep -E '"name"|"description"|"scripts"' | head -10 cat Cargo.toml 2>/dev/null | grep -E '^name|^description' | head -5 cat pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null | grep -E '^name|^description' | head -5 cat go.mod 2>/dev/null | head -3 ``` ### 1.2 Team size ```bash # Unique contributors in last 90 days git log --since="90 days ago" --format="%ae" 2>/dev/null | sort -u | wc -l # Total commits git log --oneline 2>/dev/null | wc -l ``` ### 1.3 Test maturity ```bash # Test files exist? find . -name "*.test.*" -o -name "*.spec.*" -o -name "*_test.*" -o -name "test_*.py" \ 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | grep -v ".git" | wc -l # Test framework hints grep -rn --include="*.json" --include="*.toml" --include="*.yaml" \ -l "jest\|vitest\|pytest\|rspec\|mocha\|cypress\|playwright" \ 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | head -5 # CI config ls .github/workflows/*.yml 2>/dev/null | wc -l ls .gitlab-ci.yml .circleci/config.yml 2>/dev/null | wc -l ``` ### 1.4 Spec and documentation signals ```bash # Spec files find . -name "*.spec.md" -o -name "SPEC*.md" -o -name "spec.md" -o -name "DESIGN*.md" \ -o -name "ADR*.md" -o -name "RFC*.md" \ 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | grep -v ".git" | head -10 # OpenAPI / contract files find . -name "openapi*.yaml" -o -name "openapi*.json" -o -name "swagger*.yaml" \ -o -name "*.proto" \ 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | head -5 # BDD feature files find . -name "*.feature" 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | wc -l ``` ### 1.5 Codebase size and structure ```bash # File count (rough) find . -type f \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.py" \ -o -name "*.rs" -o -name "*.go" -o -name "*.java" -o -name "*.rb" \) \ 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | grep -v ".git" | wc -l # Services / packages (monorepo signal) ls packages/ apps/ services/ 2>/dev/null | head -10 ``` ### 1.6 AI and LLM signals ```bash # LLM API usage in code grep -rn --include="*.ts" --include="*.py" --include="*.js" \ -l "anthropic\|openai\|groq\|mistral\|langchain\|llm\|ChatCompletion\|Codex" \ 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | grep -v ".git" | head -5 # Eval framework hints find . -name "evals*" -o -name "*eval*" -type d 2>/dev/null | grep -v node_modules | head -5 ``` --- ## Phase 2 — Score the 8 stacks Using what you found, score each stack 0-10 based on fit signals: | Stack | Key signals that boost the score | |-------|----------------------------------| | **solo-mvp** | 1 contributor, few files, no CI yet, greenfield | | **team-greenfield** | 2-10 contributors, new project, no legacy files | | **microservices** | `packages/`, `services/`, OpenAPI files, `.proto` | | **brownfield-saas** | High commit count, large file count, few test files | | **enterprise-gov** | 10+ contributors, CI, ADR files, `AGENTS.md` | | **llm-native** | LLM imports, eval dirs, AI product signals | | **power-solo** | 1 contributor, high commit rate, iterative commits | | **plan-moderate** | Mixed signals, AGENTS.md present, moderate size | --- ## Phase 3 — Ask only what you cannot infer After the silent analysis, present your preliminary picture to the user in 2-3 lines, then ask exactly 3 questions. No more. Format: ``` From your codebase I can see: [2-3 concrete observations]. Before recommending, 3 quick questions: 1. [Pain point question — pick the most relevant from below] 2. [Deploy frequency — if not inferable from CI/CD signals] 3. [Setup appetite — how much ceremony are you willing to invest?] ``` **Question bank — pick the 3 most relevant given what you found:** - Pain: "What slows you down most right now — regressions, unclear requirements, context rot between sessions, or no traceability?" - Pain: "When Codex generates a large chunk of code, what is your biggest worry — quality, drift from spec, or losing track of what was built?" - Deploy: "How often do you ship to production — multiple times a day, weekly, or on longer release cycles?" - Deploy: "Is this a product with real users today, a prototype, or an internal tool?" - Governance: "How much initial setup are you willing to invest — none (just start), 30 minutes, or half a day?" - Governance: "Does anyone outside your dev team (PM, QA, compliance) need to validate what gets built?" - AI product: "Does your product expose AI-generated outputs directly to end users?" - Scale: "Do multiple services or teams need to agree on API contracts before implementing?" --- ## Phase 4 — Recommendation Output the recommendation in this structure: --- ### Your Stack: [Stack Name] [icon] **Why this fits your project:** - [Finding from Phase 1] → [explains this stack choice] - [Finding from Phase 1] → [explains this stack choice] - [Answer to question N] → [explains this stack choice] **Methodologies included:** `[Method A]` + `[Method B]` (+ `[Method C]` if applicable) **What this looks like in practice:** [2-3 sentences describing the concrete workflow for THIS project, using actual file names or paths found.] **Quick start for your project:** 1. [Concrete first step using actual project context] 2. [Second step] 3. [Third step] **Befor
Trust audit
CAUTIONgrade B · trust 89/100 Install with care. The audit found things worth knowing before you trust its output.
| Layer | What it checks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Provenance & inventory | WARN |
| L1 | Static analysis of the code | NA |
| L2 | Instruction surface (what it tells the agent) | PASS |
| L3 | Class-specific surface | PASS |
| L4 | Behavioural (sandbox) | SKIPPED |
What the source does
- Filesystem
- none-observed
- Network
- none-observed
- Shell
- none-observed
- Dependencies
- pinned
- Secrets in source
- none-found
Findings (2)
whitepapers/recap-cards/en/_extensions
whitepapers/recap-cards/fr/_extensions
Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.
d90170da4369full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/florianbruniaux__source-command-methodology-advisor.json · Report an issue / request a re-scanAudit history
Every audit this skill has had.
| Date | Source | Verdict | Grade | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-07 | d90170da4369 | CAUTION | B | 89 | first audit |
Questions
What does the Source Command Methodology Advisor skill do?
The most comprehensive Claude Code guide: agentic workflows, hooks, skills, MCP servers, quizzes, and production-ready templates. 430K+ lines.
Is Source Command Methodology Advisor safe to install?
With care. The audit graded it B (89/100) and found 2 things worth knowing before you trust this skill, listed below with the exact line each was found on.
What can Source Command Methodology Advisor access on my machine?
The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.
Which assistants does Source Command Methodology Advisor work with?
Its documentation mentions codex. That is what the text claims, not a compatibility test we ran.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (d90170da4369), read on 2026-10-07. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.