scan-codebase-health

name	scan-codebase-health
description	[Documentation] Use when you need to detect codebase health issues: unused exports, doc count-drift, orphan files, stale config references.

Codex compatibility note:

• Invoke repository skills with $skill-name in Codex; this mirrored copy rewrites legacy Claude /skill-name references.
• Prefer the plan-hard skill for planning guidance in this Codex mirror.
• Task tracker mandate: BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all steps and keep it synchronized as progress changes.
• User-question prompts mean to ask the user directly in Codex.
• Ignore Claude-specific mode-switch instructions when they appear.
• Strict execution contract: when a user explicitly invokes a skill, execute that skill protocol as written.
• Subagent authorization: when a skill is user-invoked or AI-detected and its protocol requires subagents, that skill activation authorizes use of the required spawn_agent subagent(s) for that task.
• Do not skip, reorder, or merge protocol steps unless the user explicitly approves the deviation first.
• For workflow skills, execute each listed child-skill step explicitly and report step-by-step evidence.
• If a required step/tool cannot run in this environment, stop and ask the user before adapting.

Codex Project-Reference Loading (No Hooks)

Codex does not receive Claude hook-based doc injection. When coding, planning, debugging, testing, or reviewing, open project docs explicitly using this routing.

Always read:

• docs/project-config.json (project-specific paths, commands, modules, and workflow/test settings)
• docs/project-reference/docs-index-reference.md (routes to the full docs/project-reference/* catalog)
• docs/project-reference/lessons.md (always-on guardrails and anti-patterns)

Situation-based docs:

• Backend/CQRS/API/domain/entity changes: backend-patterns-reference.md, domain-entities-reference.md, project-structure-reference.md
• Frontend/UI/styling/design-system: frontend-patterns-reference.md, scss-styling-guide.md, design-system/README.md
• Spec/test-case planning or TC mapping: feature-docs-reference.md
• Integration test implementation/review: integration-test-reference.md
• E2E test implementation/review: e2e-test-reference.md
• Code review/audit work: code-review-rules.md plus domain docs above based on changed files

Do not read all docs blindly. Start from docs-index-reference.md, then open only relevant files for the task.

Quick Summary

Goal: Detect structural rot in AI-assisted codebases — dead code, count-drift, orphan files, stale configs, dead feature flags, broken cross-references. Works on any project via docs/project-config.json.

Workflow:

1. Classify — Load config, detect available tooling (graph.db, CI, feature-flag patterns)
2. Run Detections — Execute 7 detection categories (graph-dependent checks skipped if no graph.db)
3. Fresh-Eyes Review — Verify findings before writing report
4. Generate Report — Write to plans/reports/codebase-health-scan-{YYMMDD}.md
5. Present Summary — Show actionable findings with severity levels

Key Rules:

• Generic — reads all paths from project-config.json, never hardcodes project names
• Graceful degradation — graph-dependent checks skipped if .code-graph/graph.db not found
• Report format — each finding has file:line, category, severity (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), suggested action MUST ATTENTION NEVER report a finding without file:line proof

---

Scan Codebase Health

Phase 0: Classify & Detect

Before any other step, in parallel:

1. Read docs/project-config.json for the codebaseHealth section:

{
    "codebaseHealth": {
        "sourcePaths": ["src/"],
        "docPaths": ["docs/"],
        "configPatterns": ["**/appsettings*.json", "**/environment*.ts"],
        "excludePaths": ["node_modules", "dist", "bin", "obj"]
    }
}

If codebaseHealth section missing, use defaults: sourcePaths: ["src/"], docPaths: ["docs/"].

2. Detect available tooling to determine which phases to run:

Signal	Phase Enabled
.code-graph/graph.db exists	Phase 3 (Unused Exports) + Phase 4 (Orphan Files)
CI config found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml)	Phase 6 (CI Health) — optional
Feature flag patterns found (FeatureFlags, IFeatureManager, LaunchDarkly)	Phase 6 (Dead Feature Flags)
Cross-reference patterns in docs (file:line, [link]())	Phase 7 (Broken Cross-References)

3. Create task tracking entries for each enabled phase before proceeding.

Evidence gate: If docs/project-config.json not found and no detectable source paths, report and ask user for guidance. DO NOT guess project structure.

Phase 1: Doc Count-Drift Detection (No Graph Required)

Think: Which numeric claims in docs can actually be verified? What's the drift threshold that signals a real maintenance problem vs normal growth?

Scan docs/ for numeric claims: "N files", "N tests", "N hooks", "N services", "N skills", "N components". For each claim:

1. Extract number and what it counts
2. Glob/grep to verify actual count
3. Flag if actual differs from claimed

Severity thresholds:

• Drift ≤10% → LOW (normal growth)
• Drift >10% and ≤30% → MEDIUM (needs update)
• Drift >30% → HIGH (significantly stale)
• Claim cannot be verified → MEDIUM (ambiguous claim)

Write findings incrementally to report after each doc scanned. NEVER batch at end.

Phase 2: Stale Config Reference Detection (No Graph Required)

Think: Which config values reference code artifacts (class names, module names, connection strings)? Could those artifacts have been renamed or deleted?

For each file matching configPatterns:

1. Extract class names, module names, or connection strings referenced
2. Grep codebase to verify each reference still exists
3. Flag missing references as HIGH severity

Evidence gate: NEVER flag a reference as stale without attempting grep. Confidence <80% → flag as MEDIUM "unverified" only.

Phase 3: Unused Exports Detection (Graph Required)

Skip if .code-graph/graph.db does not exist — log "Phase 3 skipped: no graph.db".

Think: Which public API surface has zero consumers? Could be dead code, or could be an intentional entry point — distinguish by file type.

For key exported symbols in source files:

1. Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph query importers_of <symbol> --json
2. Flag symbols with zero importers as MEDIUM severity
3. Exclude known entry points (main files, test files, config files, startup files)

Phase 4: Orphan File Detection (Graph Required)

Skip if .code-graph/graph.db does not exist — log "Phase 4 skipped: no graph.db".

Find source files (.ts,.cs,.py, etc.) with zero inbound edges:

1. Run python .claude/scripts/code_graph query importers_of <file> --json
2. Flag files with zero importers as LOW severity (may be entry points)
3. Exclude known entry points

Phase 5: Pattern Drift Detection (No Graph Required)

Think: Where does the same pattern appear across services/modules? Does it look different in different places? Is that divergence intentional or accidental?

Compare the same pattern across services/modules:

1. Pick a pattern (e.g., repository registration, service configuration, error handling)
2. Grep across all services/modules
3. Flag inconsistencies as MEDIUM severity

Phase 6: Dead Feature Flag Detection (If Feature Flags Detected)

Skip if no feature flag patterns found in Phase 0.

Think: Which flags exist in config but have no code references? Which code references flags that no longer exist in config?

1. Grep for feature flag names in config files
2. Grep for feature flag usage in code
3. Flag config-only flags (no code usage) as LOW
4. Flag code-only flags (no config entry) as HIGH (runtime error risk)

Phase 7: Broken Cross-Reference Detection (No Graph Required)

Think: Which doc links point to files that no longer exist? Which file:line references in docs are stale?

For docs containing markdown links [text](path) or file:line references:

1. Extract all file path references
2. Glob to verify each path exists
3. Flag missing paths as MEDIUM severity

Phase 8: Fresh-Eyes Review

Before writing final report, spawn a fresh sub-agent (zero memory) to:

• Sample 5-10 findings from the report
• Verify each has a real file:line evidence source
• Check: is the severity classification justified by the description?
• Flag false positives (things flagged but actually acceptable)

Max 2 rounds → escalate to user if review finds >30% false positive rate.

Phase 9: Generate Report

Write to plans/reports/codebase-health-scan-{YYMMDD}.md:

# Codebase Health Scan Report

**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Phases Completed:** {N}/{total} ({reason for skipped phases})
**Findings:** {total} ({HIGH} high, {MEDIUM} medium, {LOW} low)

## Summary

| Phase                   | Status                              | Findings   |
| ----------------------- | ----------------------------------- | ---------- |
| Doc Count-Drift         | Scanned                             | N findings |
| Stale Config Refs       | Scanned                             | N findings |
| Unused Exports          | Scanned/Skipped (no graph.db)       | N findings |
| Orphan Files            | Scanned/Skipped (no graph.db)       | N findings |
| Pattern Drift           | Scanned                             | N findings |
| Dead Feature Flags      | Scanned/Skipped (no flags detected) | N findings |
| Broken Cross-References | Scanned                             | N findings |

## Findings

### HIGH Severity

- `{file}:{line}`: {description} — Action: {action}

### MEDIUM Severity

- `{file}:{line}`: {description} — Action: {action}

### LOW Severity

- `{file}:{line}`: {description} — Action: {action}

## False Positives (Fresh-Eyes Review)

{Findings dismissed by Round 2 review with reasoning}

---

[IMPORTANT] Use task tracking to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting.

Critical Thinking Mindset — Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources, admit uncertainty, self-check output, cross-reference independently. Certainty without evidence = root of all hallucination.

Output Quality — Token efficiency without sacrificing quality.

1. No inventories/counts — stale instantly
2. No directory trees — use 1-line path conventions
3. No TOCs — AI reads linearly
4. One example per pattern — only if non-obvious
5. Lead with answer, not reasoning
6. Sacrifice grammar for concision in reports
7. Unresolved questions at end

AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid:

Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates class names/signatures. Grep to confirm existence before documenting. Trace full dependency chain after edits. Always trace full chain. Holistic-first — resist nearest-attention trap. List EVERY precondition before forming hypothesis. Surface ambiguity before coding. NEVER pick silently.

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION output quality: no counts/trees/TOCs, 1 example per pattern, lead with answer.

MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact.

MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction.

Closing Reminders

IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small task tracking tasks BEFORE starting — one per phase IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION detect available tooling in Phase 0 — never assume graph.db exists IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION NEVER report a finding without file:line evidence IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION write findings incrementally after each phase — NEVER batch at end IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION severity thresholds are concrete: HIGH = runtime failure risk; MEDIUM = drift/dead code; LOW = cleanup candidate IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Phase 8 fresh-eyes review is mandatory — prevents false positives from rationalization

Anti-Rationalization:

Evasion	Rebuttal
"Graph not needed, skip Phases 3-4"	Phases 3-4 are explicitly gated — state skip reason in report, don't silently omit
"Count drift is small, LOW severity is fine"	Apply the threshold table: >10% = MEDIUM, >30% = HIGH. No discretionary override.
"Finding looks valid, skip Round 2 review"	Main agent rationalizes own findings. Fresh-eyes is non-negotiable.
"No feature flags found, skip Phase 6"	Log "Phase 6 skipped: no feature flag patterns detected" in report
"Config reference might still exist"	Grep to verify. Confidence <80% → flag as MEDIUM "unverified" not LOW "probably fine"

[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and break into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using task tracking.

Hookless Prompt Protocol Mirror (Auto-Synced)

Source: .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs + .claude/.ck.json

[WORKFLOW-EXECUTION-PROTOCOL] [BLOCKING] Workflow Execution Protocol — MANDATORY IMPORTANT MUST CRITICAL. Do not skip for any reason.

1. DETECT: Match prompt against workflow catalog
2. ANALYZE: Find best-match workflow AND evaluate if a custom step combination would fit better
3. ASK (REQUIRED FORMAT): Use a direct user question with this structure:
   • Question: "Which workflow do you want to activate?"
   • Option 1: "Activate [BestMatch Workflow] (Recommended)"
   • Option 2: "Activate custom workflow: [step1 → step2 → ...]" (include one-line rationale)
4. ACTIVATE (if confirmed): Call $workflow-start <workflowId> for standard; sequence custom steps manually
5. CREATE TASKS: task tracking for ALL workflow steps
6. EXECUTE: Follow each step in sequence [CRITICAL-THINKING-MINDSET] Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination principle: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination. AI Attention principle (Primacy-Recency): Put the 3 most critical rules at both top and bottom of long prompts/protocols so instruction adherence survives long context windows.

Learned Lessons

Lessons Learned

[CRITICAL] Hard-won project debugging/architecture rules. MUST ATTENTION apply BEFORE forming hypothesis or writing code.

Quick Summary

Goal: Prevent recurrence of known failure patterns — debugging, architecture, naming, AI orchestration, environment.

Top Rules (apply always):

• MUST ATTENTION verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis
• MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom sites with caller-specific defensive code
• MUST ATTENTION use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync for parallel async + repo/UoW — NEVER ExecuteUowTask
• MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE not CONTENT — adding member forces rename = abstraction broken
• MUST ATTENTION persist sub-agent findings incrementally after each file — NEVER batch at end
• MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: verify Python alias (where python/where py) — NEVER assume python/python3 resolves

---

Debugging & Root Cause Reasoning

• [2026-04-11] Holistic-first: verify environment before code. Failure → list ALL preconditions (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI regs, credentials, permissions, data prerequisites) → verify each via evidence (grep/cat/query) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis. Worst rabbit holes: diving nearest layer while bug sits elsewhere — e.g., hours debugging "sync timeout", real cause: test appsettings pointing wrong DB. Cheapest check first.
• [2026-04-01] Ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace: bug in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling)? Fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site masking real issue.
• [2026-04-01] Trace data lifecycle, not error site. Follow data: creation → transformation → consumption. Bug usually where data created wrong, not consumed.
• [2026-04-01] Code is caller-agnostic. Functions/handlers/consumers don't know who invokes them. Comments/guards/messages describe business intent — NEVER reference specific callers (tests, seeders, scripts).

Architecture Invariants

• [2026-03-31] ParallelAsync + repo/UoW MUST use ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask. ExecuteUowTask creates new UoW but reuses outer DI scope (same DbContext) — parallel iterations sharing non-thread-safe DbContext silently corrupt data. ExecuteInjectScopedAsync creates new UoW + new DI scope (fresh repo per iteration).
• [2026-03-31] Bus message naming MUST include service name prefix — core services NEVER consume feature events. Prefix declares schema ownership (AccountUserEntityEventBusMessage = Accounts owns). Core services (Accounts, Communication) are leaders. Feature services (Growth, Talents) sending to core MUST use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage — never define own event for core to consume.

Naming & Abstraction

• [2026-04-12] Name PURPOSE not CONTENT — "OrXxx" anti-pattern. HrManagerOrHrOrPayrollHrOperationsPolicy names set members, not what it guards. Add role → rename = broken abstraction. Rule: names express DOES/GUARDS, not CONTAINS. Test: adding/removing member forces rename? YES = content-driven = bad → rename to purpose (e.g., HrOperationsAccessPolicy). Nuance: "Or" fine in behavioral idioms (FirstOrDefault, SuccessOrThrow) — expresses HAPPENS, not membership.

Environment & Tooling

• [2026-04-20] Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — verify alias first. Python may not be in bash PATH under those names. Check: where python / where py. Prefer py (Windows Python Launcher) for one-liners, node if JS alternative exists.

Test-specific lessons → docs/project-reference/integration-test-reference.md Lessons Learned section. Production-code anti-patterns → docs/project-reference/backend-patterns-reference.md Anti-Patterns section. Generic debugging/refactoring reminders → System Lessons in .claude/hooks/lib/prompt-injections.cjs.

---

Closing Reminders

• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION holistic-first: verify ALL preconditions (config, env, DB names, endpoints, DI regs) BEFORE code-layer hypothesis — cheapest check first
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION fix responsible layer — NEVER patch symptom site; trace caller (wrong data) vs callee (wrong handling), fix root owner
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION parallel async + repo/UoW → ALWAYS ExecuteInjectScopedAsync, NEVER ExecuteUowTask (shared DbContext = silent data corruption)
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION bus message prefix = schema ownership; feature services NEVER define events for core services — use {CoreServiceName}...RequestBusMessage
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION name by PURPOSE — adding/removing member forces rename = broken abstraction
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION sub-agents MUST write findings after each file/section — NEVER batch all findings into one final write
• IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Windows bash: NEVER assume python/python3 resolves — run where python/where py first, use py launcher or node

[LESSON-LEARNED-REMINDER] [BLOCKING] Task Planning & Continuous Improvement — MANDATORY. Do not skip.

Break work into small tasks (task tracking) before starting. Add final task: "Analyze AI mistakes & lessons learned".

Extract lessons — ROOT CAUSE ONLY, not symptom fixes:

1. Name the FAILURE MODE (reasoning/assumption failure), not symptom — "assumed API existed without reading source" not "used wrong enum value".
2. Generality test: does this failure mode apply to ≥3 contexts/codebases? If not, abstract one level up.
3. Write as a universal rule — strip project-specific names/paths/classes. Useful on any codebase.
4. Consolidate: multiple mistakes sharing one failure mode → ONE lesson.
5. Recurrence gate: "Would this recur in future session WITHOUT this reminder?" — No → skip $learn.
6. Auto-fix gate: "Could $code-review/$code-simplifier/$security/$lint catch this?" — Yes → improve review skill instead.
7. BOTH gates pass → ask user to run $learn. [TASK-PLANNING] [MANDATORY] BEFORE executing any workflow or skill step, create/update task tracking for all planned steps, then keep it synchronized as each step starts/completes.