agentleFS
aspenkitaspenkit/aspens/.claude/skills/doc-impact/skill.md

doc-impact

Skill100 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Context health analysis — freshness, domain coverage, hub surfacing, drift detection, LLM-powered interpretation, and auto-repair for generated agent context

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Target inference: If .aspens.json is absent, targets are inferred from scan results (.claude/ → claude, .agents/ → codex).

    line 28
  2. Very specific:

    Graph failure is non-fatal: If buildRepoGraph throws (or --no-graph is passed), graph is null and hub coverage is skipped/n/a.

    line 30
  3. Very specific:

    Don't surface root-context hub warnings when codeMapMissing is true — emit the code-map-missing item instead and tell the user to run …

    line 50

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
skill.md

You are working on doc impact — the command that shows whether generated agent context is keeping up with the codebase, optionally interprets results via LLM, and can interactively apply recommended repairs.

Domain purpose

Audits the agent context generated by aspens against the live source tree, reports per-target health (Claude, Codex), and offers an interactive --apply flow that re-runs the right aspens doc init/sync variant to repair gaps. The LLM interpretation is a thin layer on top of deterministic metrics — the metrics are the contract.

Business rules / invariants

  • Target inference: If .aspens.json is absent, targets are inferred from scan results (.claude/ → claude, .agents/ → codex). Falls back to ['claude'].
  • LLM is optional and tool-less. Runs only when a CLI backend is detected. runLLM is invoked with disableTools: true; prompt must return pure JSON (bottom_line, improves, risks, next_step). Failure is caught and reported as "Analysis unavailable" — never fatal.
  • Graph failure is non-fatal. If buildRepoGraph throws (or --no-graph is passed), graph is null and hub coverage is skipped/n/a.
  • Hub coverage haystack is the code-map, not CLAUDE.md. Post-Phase 1, ## Key Files no longer lives in root instructions. computeHubCoverage reads .claude/code-map.md (claude) or .agents/skills/architecture/references/code-map.md (codex). If the code-map file is missing, it reports codeMapMissing: true instead of spurious "missing hub" warnings. Older callers without repoPath fall back to the legacy contextText haystack.
  • Health score deductions (start 100): missing instructions −35; no skills −25; domain gaps proportional up to −25; missed hubs −4 each; drift −3 per file (cap −20); unhealthy hooks −10 (hook-capable targets only); broken save-tokens −5 (claude only).
  • LOW_SIGNAL_DOMAIN_NAMES (config, test, tests, __tests__, spec, e2e) are excluded from coverage scoring but tracked in excluded.
  • SOURCE_EXTS extends the scanner set with .scala, .clj, .elm, .vue, .svelte for drift detection. Adding a language for drift requires updating this set.
  • Walk depth capped at 5 — deep nested source files won't appear in drift analysis.

Non-obvious behaviors

  • Agent skill-ref check (Phase 6): checkAgentSkillReferences() scans .claude/agents/*.md frontmatter for skills: [a, b] and verifies each .claude/skills/<name>/skill.md exists. Broken refs surface as agent-skill-refs opportunities.
  • Save-tokens health is Claude-only and only activates when config.saveTokens.enabled is true and claude.enabled !== false. Required hook/command files vary by sub-config (saveHandoff, warnAtTokens/compactAtTokens thresholds). Legacy .mjs siblings of the .sh hooks must be cleaned up — their presence is an issue.
  • buildApplyPlan dedupes with aspens doc sync as a target-agnostic key; everything else is keyed ${target.id}:${action}.
  • applyRecommendedAction is a hand-maintained dispatch table mapping action strings to docInitCommand/docSyncCommand option shapes. Adding a new recommendation in recommendActions() requires a matching branch here, otherwise it warns "Cannot apply automatically".

Critical files (purpose, not inventory)

  • src/commands/doc-impact.js — CLI rendering, LLM prompt assembly, buildApplyPlan, and the action dispatch into docInitCommand/docSyncCommand.
  • src/lib/impact.js — All deterministic analysis (analyzeImpact, target summarization, scoring, drift, hub/code-map coverage, hook/save-tokens health, opportunities, missing rollup, value comparison).
  • src/prompts/impact-analyze.md — Strict JSON contract the LLM must honor; do not change shape without updating parseAnalysis.

Critical Rules

  • Skills/activationPatterns are matched via findMatchingSkill (substring or /domain/ path hit). Renaming the skill-reader contract breaks coverage scoring.
  • Don't surface root-context hub warnings when codeMapMissing is true — emit the code-map-missing item instead and tell the user to run aspens doc graph.
  • Exported surface used by tests/consumers: computeDomainCoverage, computeHubCoverage, computeDrift, evaluateHookHealth, evaluateSaveTokensHealth, computeHealthScore, computeTargetStatus, recommendActions, summarizeReport, summarizeMissing, summarizeOpportunities, summarizeValueComparison, checkAgentSkillReferences from impact.js; buildApplyPlan, buildApplyConfirmationMessage from doc-impact.js.

Last Updated: 2026-05-11

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.