discover-codebase-enhancements

name	discover-codebase-enhancements
description	Use when the user asks for a deep codebase analysis to identify and rank improvements, optimizations, architectural enhancements, or potential bugs aligned to developer, end-user, and agent jobs-to-be-done.

Discover Codebase Enhancements

Overview

Spend significant time crawling and analyzing the codebase to surface high-impact improvements. Center findings on the jobs-to-be-done of the codebase, developers, end users, and AI agents working in the repo.

Inputs (ask if missing, max 5)

• Target area or scope (whole repo or specific modules)
• Primary user jobs-to-be-done and business goals
• Known pain points or incidents
• Constraints (time, risk tolerance, release window)
• Evidence sources allowed (tests, metrics, logs)

Jobs-to-Be-Done Lens

• Codebase: reliability, simplicity, maintainability
• Developers: speed, clarity, safe changes
• End users: correctness, performance, usability
• AI agents: discoverability, consistency, explicit patterns

Workflow

1. Deep crawl
   • Read architecture docs, READMEs, key modules, and tests.
   • Search for hotspots (TODO/FIXME, large files, duplication, complex flows).
2. Evidence gathering
   • Note error-prone areas, missing tests, performance risks, and coupling.
   • Capture references to files/functions and concrete symptoms.
3. Opportunity synthesis
   • Group findings by theme: correctness, performance, DX, architecture, tests, tooling.
4. Impact scoring
   • Rate impact, effort, risk, and evidence strength.
5. Ranked recommendations
   • Present top enhancements with rationale and expected outcomes.

Output Format

## Codebase Enhancement Discovery

### Context Summary
[1-3 sentences]

### JTBD Summary
- Codebase: ...
- Developers: ...
- End users: ...
- AI agents: ...

### Evidence Sources
- Files/modules reviewed: ...
- Patterns searched: ...
- Tests or metrics considered: ...

### Ranked Enhancements
1) [Enhancement]
   - Category: ...
   - Impact: high | Effort: medium | Risk: low | Evidence: moderate
   - Rationale: ...
   - Affected areas: ...

### Quick Wins
- ...

### Open Questions
- ...

Quick Reference

• Spend more time exploring than feels necessary.
• Prefer evidence-backed findings over speculation.
• Center recommendations on user and developer outcomes.

Common Mistakes

• Skimming without enough code context
• Listing fixes without evidence or impact scoring
• Ignoring AI agent or developer workflows
• Recommending changes that fight existing architecture