detect-ai-value-mode-from-codebase

name	detect-ai-value-mode-from-codebase
description	Analyse a codebase to determine which of the four AI product value modes it embodies — Amplifier, Substitute, Job Creator, or Democratiser — and produce a sober, evidence-grounded verdict report in plain prose (Unicode text only, no emojis). Use this skill when the user wants to understand the strategic positioning or business model of an AI product by reading its code: triggers include "what mode is this", "detect AI value mode", "which quadrant does this fall into", "classify my AI product", or any pairing of a codebase path or pasted code with a question about how the product creates value, who its buyer is, or how it should be positioned. Trigger even when the user does not name the four modes explicitly — intent to classify an AI product from its code is sufficient. When asked for a diagram or infographic version, also renders the verdict as a self-contained HTML poster.
license	MIT
metadata	{"version":"1.1.0","author":"Francy Lisboa Charuto"}

detect-ai-value-mode-from-codebase

Purpose

This skill reads a codebase — or a significant excerpt thereof — and produces a structured verdict report that classifies the product against the four AI value modes defined in the enterprise AI adoption framework. The report is written in plain prose, uses only Unicode text (no emojis, no markdown decorations beyond headers and horizontal rules), and is designed to be sober and directly useful in a product strategy or sales conversation.

The four modes are defined in full in references/value_modes.md. Load that file before beginning the analysis. The verdict report schema and scoring rubric are in references/verdict_schema.md. Load that file before writing the report.

---

Workflow

Step 0 — Locate the codebase

The skill accepts three input forms. Detect which one is present and act accordingly before doing anything else.

Form A — Dot or local path

The user types . or a local filesystem path (absolute or relative).

# List the tree first to understand scope
find . -type f | grep -v -E '(\.git|node_modules|__pycache__|\.pyc|dist/|build/)' | head -150

# Then read selectively in this priority order:
# 1. Entry points: main.py, index.ts, app.py, cli.py, server.py, cmd/main.go
# 2. AI integration layer: any file importing openai, anthropic, langchain,
#    llamaindex, huggingface, litellm, or similar
# 3. Agent/tool definitions: tools.py, tools.ts, agents/, functions/
# 4. Prompt files: prompts/, system_prompts/, *.txt in root, *.md in prompts/
# 5. Configuration: config.yaml, .env.example, settings.py, config.ts
# 6. User interface: routes/, api/, ui/, components/, cli/
# 7. README.md and any docs/ files that describe the product's purpose

Form B — GitHub or GitLab URL

The user provides a URL of the form: https://github.com/org/repo or https://gitlab.com/org/repo

Clone to a temporary directory and proceed as Form A:

git clone --depth=1 <url> /tmp/assess-$(date +%s)
cd /tmp/assess-<timestamp>
find . -type f | grep -v -E '(\.git|node_modules|__pycache__|\.pyc|dist/|build/)' | head -150
# then follow Form A priority read order

If the URL includes a branch or subdirectory (https://github.com/org/repo/tree/branch/subdir), parse it:

# Extract branch and subdir from URL, then:
git clone --depth=1 --branch <branch> <base-url> /tmp/assess-$(date +%s)
cd /tmp/assess-<timestamp>/<subdir>

Form C — Pasted code or uploaded files

The user has pasted one or more files into the conversation, or files are available at /mnt/user-data/uploads/. Read them from context. If the paste is fewer than ~150 lines with no imports or entry point visible, flag the assessment as LOW CONFIDENCE in the header and note what architectural context is missing.

If none of the above

Ask the user for one of: a local path (or . for current directory), a GitHub/GitLab URL, or a code paste. Do not guess or proceed without a target.

---

Do not proceed to Step 1 without having read enough of the codebase to form evidence-based conclusions. Minimum viable read: entry point(s), AI/model integration layer, any prompt or tool definition files, configuration, and the primary user-facing interface (CLI, API routes, UI components, or webhook handlers).

Step 1 — Architecture reconnaissance

Read and note the following signals, organised by the six framework dimensions. Document your raw findings before scoring.

Identity signals (baseline — applies to all dimensions)

• Primary language and framework
• Entry points (CLI, API server, web app, library, SDK, agent harness)
• Deployment model (local, SaaS, embedded, on-premise)

Core proposition signals

• Is the model in the critical path or an optional accelerator?
• Does the product deliver a new capability, or does it speed up an existing one?
• Is the output consumed by the same person who triggered the request, or by an external system or downstream human?

Sales ease signals

• Who is implied as the buyer: a practitioner, a team manager, a CFO/COO, or a self-serve individual?
• Is there a configuration burden that implies a technical sale vs. self-serve?
• Does the code assume an existing documented process, or does it work on any unstructured input?

Impl. effort signals

• Presence of autonomous action (tool calls, browser control, code execution, file writes, API side-effects) vs. pure generation
• Human-in-the-loop checkpoints (confirmation prompts, approval gates, review steps) — are they in the normal path or the exception path?
• Does the entry trigger require a human or is it automated (schedule, webhook)?

Internal resistance signals

• Does the product replace a named job function or augment it?
• Is the product framed (in comments, READMEs, config) as a copilot or as an autonomous agent?
• Would an existing practitioner in this domain feel threatened or empowered?

Real example signals

• What is the closest prior-art human role or manual process this code approximates?
• Are there domain-specific prompt files, rule sets, or ontologies that indicate vertical depth?

Main risk signals

• Is there output validation, or does the code trust model output directly?
• Is there an escalation or fallback path for edge cases?
• Does the onboarding complexity match the target user's likely technical level?

Step 2 — Score against the four modes

Load references/value_modes.md and score each mode on a 0–10 scale using the criteria defined there. Do not round to avoid false precision — use one decimal place. Record your reasoning for each score before writing the report. This internal scratchpad is not included in the final report but must be completed first to ensure the verdict is grounded.

Scoring is relative: the mode with the highest score is the Primary Mode. If the second-highest score is within 1.5 points of the primary, flag it as a Secondary Mode and explain the tension.

Step 3 — Write the verdict report

Follow the schema in references/verdict_schema.md exactly. The report must:

• Use plain prose paragraphs, not bullet lists or tables, except where the schema explicitly calls for a structured block.
• Cite specific files, functions, patterns, or configuration keys as evidence for every claim. Assertions without file-level evidence are not permitted.
• Be written in the same language the user used (default English).
• Contain no emojis, no decorative characters, and no hedging language that weakens the verdict (phrases like "it could be argued" or "one might say" are prohibited — state the conclusion directly, then qualify with evidence).
• Be self-contained: a reader who has not seen the codebase must be able to understand the verdict and its reasoning.

Step 4 (optional) — Render the infographic

This step fires only when the user explicitly asks for a diagram, infographic, or visual version of the assessment — either in the initial request ("classify this codebase, with a diagram") or as a follow-up to an already-delivered report ("now give me the infographic version"). If the user did not ask, skip this step entirely and do not offer it.

The infographic accompanies the prose report; it never replaces it. Always produce the prose report first (Steps 0–3), then derive the infographic from the finished report.

1. Load references/infographic_template.md and follow it exactly: design system, report-to-infographic mapping, and pre-delivery checklist.
2. Generate the HTML from the completed prose report only. Do not re-derive scores or re-read the codebase. Scores, confidence level, and primary/secondary mode emphasis must match the report exactly.
3. Write a single self-contained .html file named <codebase-name>-value-mode-infographic.html to the current working directory (or a user-specified location) and report the saved path.

---

Edge cases and failure modes

Insufficient codebase access: If the available code is a small snippet (under ~150 lines) or a single file with no architectural context, say so explicitly at the top of the report and flag all scores as LOW CONFIDENCE. Provide the best available analysis but recommend a full-codebase run.

Hybrid products: Many real products span two modes. The skill must still return a Primary Mode — tie-breaking is not permitted. When scores are close, the tiebreaker is "where does the value proposition land in the first user interaction?" — the mode that best describes the product's opening move is primary.

Non-AI codebases: If the codebase contains no model calls, no AI APIs, and no generation or inference logic, return a one-paragraph report stating that no AI value mode classification is possible and explain what was found instead.

Internal tooling vs. commercial product: The four modes were defined for commercial AI products sold to enterprise buyers. Internal developer tools, infrastructure libraries, and research codebases may not map cleanly. When this is the case, note it explicitly and apply the framework as far as it applies, with the caveat stated.

---

Output

The final output is the verdict report as defined in references/verdict_schema.md, written directly to the conversation (not saved to a file unless the user asks). No preamble, no meta-commentary about the skill or the process. Begin directly with the report header.

If the user requested the diagram form (Step 4), the output additionally includes one self-contained HTML infographic file rendered per references/infographic_template.md, with its saved path reported after the prose report.

---

Compatibility and installation

This skill follows the agentskills.io open SKILL.md standard and runs on any agent that reads it.

Tested / supported agents

• Claude Code (Anthropic)
• GitHub Copilot — VS Code agent mode and Copilot CLI
• Cursor (manual placement)
• Codex CLI (OpenAI)
• Any agent that reads the agentskills.io open standard

Install paths (personal | project)

• Claude Code: ~/.claude/skills/ | .claude/skills/
• GitHub Copilot (VS Code & CLI): ~/.copilot/skills/ | .github/skills/
• Codex CLI: ~/.codex/skills/ | .codex/skills/
• Cursor: ~/.cursor/skills/ | .cursor/skills/

Place this folder (named detect-ai-value-mode-from-codebase) in one of the paths above so the folder name matches the skill name.

Invocation

/detect-ai-value-mode-from-codebase .
/detect-ai-value-mode-from-codebase <github-or-gitlab-url>

Or simply describe the intent (for example, "what value mode is this codebase?") and the agent will trigger the skill from its description.

Attribution

The four value modes (Amplifier, Substitute, Job Creator, Democratiser) are drawn from the Enterprise AI Adoption Framework attributed to Derley Morais (Iron Flow). This skill packages that framework as an analysis workflow; the framework itself remains the property of its author.