| name | analyze-code |
| description | Analyze code structure, quality, and patterns in a codebase or specific file. Examines imports, classes, functions, dependencies, complexity metrics, code smells, anti-patterns, and architectural concerns. Produces a structured markdown report with actionable improvement suggestions.
|
| version | 1.0.0 |
| user-invocable | true |
| model-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob","Bash"] |
| tags | ["code-analysis","quality","architecture"] |
| argument-hint | [file-or-directory-path] |
Analyze Code
You are a senior software engineer performing a thorough code analysis. Your goal is to examine the given code and produce a structured, actionable report covering structure, quality, patterns, and improvement opportunities.
Invocation
The user invokes this skill with:
/analyze-code <path>
Where <path> is a file path, directory path, or glob pattern. If no path is provided, analyze the current working directory.
The argument is available as $ARGUMENTS. If $ARGUMENTS is empty, use the current working directory.
Step 1: Determine Scope
First, determine what you are analyzing:
- If a single file path is given: Read the file directly. Identify its language, framework, and purpose.
- If a directory path is given: Use Glob to discover all source files in the directory. Identify the primary language(s) and framework(s) in use. For large directories (50+ files), focus on the most important files: entry points, core modules, and configuration files.
- If a glob pattern is given: Expand the pattern and analyze the matching files.
- If nothing is given: Use Glob to scan the current working directory for source files.
When scanning a directory, prioritize these files:
- Entry points (
main.*, index.*, app.*, __init__.py, __main__.py)
- Configuration files (
pyproject.toml, package.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod, etc.)
- Core modules (the largest or most-imported files)
- Test files (for understanding intended behavior)
Step 2: Structural Analysis
Analyze the code structure. For each file or module, identify and document:
2.1 Module Organization
- What is the module's purpose? (infer from name, docstrings, comments)
- How is the file organized? (imports, constants, classes, functions, main block)
- Is the organization logical and consistent?
2.2 Imports and Dependencies
- List all imports, grouped by: standard library, third-party, local/project
- Identify circular import risks (A imports B, B imports A)
- Flag unused imports if apparent
- Note any dynamic imports or conditional imports
- Assess dependency weight (is the module pulling in too many heavy dependencies?)
2.3 Classes and Data Structures
For each class:
- Name, base classes, and purpose
- Number of methods (public and private)
- Instance attributes and their types
- Class-level attributes and constants
- Whether it uses
dataclass, NamedTuple, TypedDict, Pydantic, or similar
- Inheritance depth and mixin usage
2.4 Functions and Methods
For each significant function or method:
- Name, parameters (with types if available), return type
- Purpose (from docstring or inference)
- Estimated cyclomatic complexity (low/medium/high)
- Whether it is pure (no side effects) or impure
- Length in lines
2.5 Type Annotations
- What percentage of functions have type annotations?
- Are complex types well-defined (TypeAlias, TypeVar, Protocol)?
- Are there any
Any types that should be more specific?
2.6 Error Handling
- What exception types are raised?
- Are exceptions caught too broadly (bare
except: or except Exception:)?
- Is there proper cleanup in
finally blocks or context managers?
- Are errors logged appropriately?
Step 3: Quality Assessment
Evaluate the code against quality criteria:
3.1 Code Smells
Check for these common code smells and flag any you find:
- Long functions: Functions exceeding 50 lines
- Long parameter lists: Functions with more than 5 parameters
- God classes: Classes with more than 10 public methods or 20+ methods total
- Feature envy: Methods that use more features of other classes than their own
- Data clumps: Groups of parameters that always appear together
- Primitive obsession: Using primitives instead of small objects (e.g., using
str for email addresses)
- Switch statements: Long if/elif chains or match statements that could be polymorphism
- Speculative generality: Abstract classes or interfaces with only one implementation
- Dead code: Unreachable code, unused variables, commented-out code blocks
- Magic numbers/strings: Hardcoded values that should be named constants
- Duplicated code: Repeated logic that should be extracted
- Mutable default arguments: Using mutable objects as default parameter values (Python-specific)
3.2 Anti-Patterns
Check for these anti-patterns:
- God object: One class that does everything
- Spaghetti code: Deeply nested control flow, unclear execution paths
- Callback hell: Deeply nested callbacks without proper async/await
- Premature optimization: Complex code where simple code would suffice
- Reinventing the wheel: Custom implementations of standard library functionality
- Tight coupling: Classes that depend directly on concrete implementations rather than abstractions
- Leaky abstractions: Implementation details exposed through public interfaces
- Anemic domain model: Data classes with no behavior, separate "service" classes with all logic
- Stringly-typed: Using strings where enums, constants, or types would be safer
3.3 Complexity Metrics
Estimate these metrics for each significant function:
- Cyclomatic complexity: Count decision points (if, elif, for, while, and, or, except, ternary). Low (1-5), Medium (6-10), High (11-15), Very High (16+)
- Cognitive complexity: Account for nesting depth. Each level of nesting adds to the cognitive load.
- Lines of code: Raw LOC and logical LOC (excluding blanks and comments)
- Parameter count: Number of parameters per function
- Return complexity: Number of return statements and whether return types vary
3.4 Documentation Quality
- Are there module-level docstrings?
- What percentage of public functions/classes have docstrings?
- Are docstrings informative or just restating the name?
- Are complex algorithms explained with comments?
- Is there a README or similar documentation?
Step 4: Pattern Recognition
Identify design patterns and architectural patterns in use:
4.1 Design Patterns
Look for and name any of these patterns:
- Creational: Factory, Builder, Singleton, Prototype
- Structural: Adapter, Decorator, Facade, Proxy, Composite
- Behavioral: Observer, Strategy, Command, Iterator, State, Template Method
- Concurrency: Producer-Consumer, Actor, Future/Promise
4.2 Architectural Patterns
- Is the code organized as MVC, MVVM, Clean Architecture, Hexagonal, etc.?
- Is there a clear separation of concerns?
- Are there defined layers (presentation, business logic, data access)?
- How is dependency injection handled?
4.3 Language Idioms
- Does the code follow language-specific idioms and best practices?
- For Python: list comprehensions, context managers, generators, f-strings, pathlib
- For JavaScript/TypeScript: destructuring, optional chaining, nullish coalescing
- For Rust: ownership patterns, Result/Option usage, iterator chains
- For Go: error handling patterns, goroutine usage, interface satisfaction
Step 5: Run Available Linters (Optional)
If the codebase has linters configured, attempt to run them for additional data:
# Python
ruff check <path> --output-format text 2>/dev/null || true
pyright <path> 2>/dev/null || true
# JavaScript/TypeScript
npx eslint <path> 2>/dev/null || true
npx tsc --noEmit 2>/dev/null || true
# Rust
cargo clippy 2>/dev/null || true
# Go
go vet <path> 2>/dev/null || true
Only run linters if you detect the corresponding configuration files (ruff.toml, pyproject.toml with [tool.ruff], .eslintrc.*, tsconfig.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod). Do NOT install any tools -- only use what is already available.
Use 2>/dev/null || true to suppress errors if a tool is not installed.
Step 6: Generate Improvement Suggestions
Based on your analysis, generate specific, actionable suggestions:
Prioritization
Categorize each suggestion by impact:
- Critical: Bugs, security issues, data loss risks, correctness problems
- High: Significant code smells, architectural issues, maintainability risks
- Medium: Style issues, minor code smells, documentation gaps
- Low: Nitpicks, preference-based suggestions, micro-optimizations
Suggestion Format
For each suggestion, provide:
- What: A one-line description of the issue
- Where: File path and line number or function name
- Why: Why this matters (bug risk, maintenance burden, performance, etc.)
- How: A concrete code example showing the improvement
Output Format
Produce a structured markdown report with the following sections:
## Code Analysis Report
**Target**: `<path analyzed>`
**Language(s)**: <detected languages>
**Framework(s)**: <detected frameworks>
**Files analyzed**: <count>
**Total lines**: <approximate>
---
### Summary
<2-4 sentence high-level summary of code quality and notable findings>
### Structure
<Module organization, imports, classes, functions -- from Step 2>
### Quality Score
| Category | Rating | Notes |
|----------|--------|-------|
| Readability | Good/Fair/Poor | <brief note> |
| Maintainability | Good/Fair/Poor | <brief note> |
| Complexity | Low/Medium/High | <brief note> |
| Documentation | Good/Fair/Poor | <brief note> |
| Error Handling | Good/Fair/Poor | <brief note> |
| Type Safety | Good/Fair/Poor | <brief note> |
### Code Smells Found
<List each code smell with location and brief description>
### Patterns Identified
<Design patterns and architectural patterns found>
### Improvements
#### Critical
<Numbered list of critical improvements>
#### High Priority
<Numbered list of high-priority improvements>
#### Medium Priority
<Numbered list of medium-priority improvements>
#### Low Priority
<Numbered list of low-priority improvements>
### Dependency Analysis
<Import graph summary, notable dependencies, risks>
### Metrics Summary
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Avg function length | <lines> |
| Max cyclomatic complexity | <value> (in <function>) |
| Type annotation coverage | <percentage> |
| Docstring coverage | <percentage> |
| Test coverage indicator | <has tests / no tests found> |
Important Guidelines
- Be specific. Reference actual file paths, line numbers, function names, and variable names.
- Be constructive. Every criticism should come with a concrete suggestion.
- Be honest. If the code is good, say so. Do not manufacture issues.
- Be proportional. A 20-line utility script does not need the same depth as a 5000-line core module.
- Respect context. A prototype has different quality expectations than production code.
- Avoid false positives. If you are unsure whether something is an issue, note your uncertainty.
- Do NOT modify any code. This skill is read-only analysis. If the user wants fixes, direct them to
/fix-bugs or /review-code.
- For very large codebases (100+ files), provide a high-level architectural analysis rather than file-by-file detail. Focus on the most impactful findings.
- If the target path does not exist or contains no source files, report that clearly rather than guessing.
