| name | First 10 Moves |
| description | The exact operational recon sequence for an unfamiliar codebase or unfamiliar area. Replaces "ask the human to clarify" with "read the code first." Most clarification questions are answered by 5 minutes in the relevant file - this skill enforces reading before asking. |
First 10 Moves
When dropped into an unfamiliar codebase or asked to fix something in code you don't know — run this sequence before doing anything else. The principle: most "clarification" questions are answered by 5 minutes in the relevant file. If the answer is in the code, the docs, or the file tree — find it there before asking.
When to use
- Fresh in an unfamiliar codebase
- Asked to fix or change code in an area you haven't worked in
- Tempted to ask "where does X live?" or "how does Y work?"
- Triggered by Caddy on prompts like: "fix the X", "investigate", "trace this bug", "how does X work", "unfamiliar codebase", "where is X defined", "what calls Y", "navigate the code", "find the bug in"
The sequence (run top-to-bottom)
1. Re-read the user's request
Look for clues. "Fix" implies a bug. "The headline generator" implies a named module. Note any screenshots, errors, or examples included. The exact phrasing embeds most of the diagnosis — don't abstract it away.
2. Get the lay of the land (~30 seconds)
- List project root
- Identify main source directory
- Read
package.json / pyproject.toml / Cargo.toml (whatever the manifest is)
- Read README if short
This rules out a lot. You learn the language, framework, build system, and entry point in 30 seconds.
3. Search for the keyword across the project
One ripgrep, filtered to relevant extensions. The matches will cluster around the real module.
4. Pick the most likely 2-3 matched files
Filenames are huge signal. aiHeadlineGenerator.ts beats headlineUtils.test.ts. Production code beats test code. Implementation beats type definitions.
5. Read the public surface of the top candidate
Imports + exports, not bodies. Shape first. What does this module take in and put out? What does it depend on?
6. Find the entry point — who calls this?
Search for the main exported function name. Call sites tell you how the module fits into the larger pipeline.
7. Read one upstream call site fully
Concrete example of "what inputs does this receive in real use?" That constrains everything downstream. Don't read 5 call sites — one is usually enough.
8. Read the main function body, focused on the symptom
- Specific symptom ("headlines are repeating") → find the path that produces it (the loop, the dedup logic, the source list)
- General "fix it" → top-to-bottom, alert for obvious issues (off-by-one, null guards, stale comparators, hardcoded values)
9. Query the data the function works with
A few DB rows, the actual config file, the recent log lines. Reality often disagrees with code's assumptions. This catches it fast.
10. Form a hypothesis, verify with one targeted read or query
"I think X because Y, confirm by checking Z."
- Confirmed → fix.
- Not confirmed → loop back to step 8 with the new hypothesis.
Hit rate at step 10: ~80% land a correct hypothesis. The remaining 20% loop back with what was learned.
What NOT to do in the first 10 moves
- ❌ Read every file in the directory
- ❌ Read tests before reading the code under test
- ❌ Ask a clarifying question (unless genuinely too vague)
- ❌ Start writing fix code (first fix attempt comes AFTER move 10)
- ❌ Run the code to "see what happens" — understand it statically first
- ❌ Open the IDE outline / class hierarchy explorer — too noisy
- ❌ Ask the user "where is X defined?" — grep is faster than asking
Most of the work is reading, not writing
A typical non-trivial change is ~80% reading, 20% writing. The edit is the result of the engineering, not the engineering itself. Agents that flip this ratio produce code that doesn't fit the surrounding system.
Output format
When you complete the recon, before writing any fix code, output:
**Recon complete:**
- Module: {path/to/file.ts}
- Entry point: {function name + caller path}
- Hypothesis: {what I think is wrong, in plain English}
- Verified by: {what I read/queried that confirms the hypothesis}
- Plan: {smallest change that solves it}
Then execute the fix.
