Analyzing Codebase

Purpose

Systematically analyze existing codebases to extract structural information. Supports three modes:

1. Context Mode: Gather project characteristics to inform constitution authoring
2. Brownfield Mode: Extract entities, endpoints, and collision risks for planning
3. Setup-Brownfield Mode: Comprehensive analysis for /humaninloop:setup producing codebase-analysis.md

Mode Selection

Mode	When to Use	Output
Context	Setting up constitution, understanding project DNA	Markdown report for humans
Brownfield	Planning new features against existing code	JSON inventory with collision risks
Setup-Brownfield	/humaninloop:setup on existing codebase	codebase-analysis.md with inventory + assessment

Project Type Detection

Identify project type from package manager files:

File	Project Type
package.json	Node.js/JavaScript/TypeScript
pyproject.toml / requirements.txt	Python
go.mod	Go
Cargo.toml	Rust
pom.xml / build.gradle	Java
Gemfile	Ruby
pubspec.yaml	Flutter/Dart

Framework Detection

Web Frameworks

Framework	Indicators
Express	express(), router.get(), app.use()
FastAPI	@app.get(), FastAPI(), APIRouter
Django	urls.py, views.py, models.py pattern
Flask	@app.route(), @bp.route()
Rails	routes.rb, app/models/, app/controllers/
Spring	@RestController, @GetMapping, @Entity
Gin/Echo	r.GET(), e.GET()

ORM/Database Frameworks

Framework	Indicators
Prisma	schema.prisma, @prisma/client
TypeORM	@Entity(), @Column(), DataSource
SQLAlchemy	Base, db.Model, Column()
Django ORM	models.Model, models.CharField
GORM	gorm.Model, db.AutoMigrate
Mongoose	mongoose.Schema, new Schema({
ActiveRecord	ApplicationRecord, has_many

Architecture Pattern Recognition

Pattern	Indicators
Layered	src/models/, src/services/, src/controllers/
Feature-based	src/auth/, src/users/, src/tasks/
Microservices	Multiple package files, docker compose
Serverless	serverless.yml, lambda/, functions/
MVC	models/, views/, controllers/
Clean/Hexagonal	domain/, application/, infrastructure/

Mode: Context Gathering

For constitution authoring - gather broad project characteristics.

What to Extract:

• Tech stack with versions
• Linting/formatting conventions
• CI/CD quality gates
• Team signals (test coverage, required approvals, CODEOWNERS)
• Existing governance docs (CODEOWNERS, ADRs, CONTRIBUTING.md)

Output: Project Context Report (markdown)

See CONTEXT-GATHERING.md for detailed guidance.

Mode: Brownfield Analysis

For planning - extract structural details for collision detection.

What to Extract:

• Entities with fields and relationships
• Endpoints with handlers
• Collision risks against proposed spec

Output: Codebase Inventory (JSON)

See BROWNFIELD-ANALYSIS.md for detailed guidance.

Mode: Setup Brownfield

For /humaninloop:setup - comprehensive analysis combining Context + Brownfield with Essential Floor assessment.

What to Extract:

• Everything from Context mode (tech stack, conventions, architecture)
• Everything from Brownfield mode (entities, relationships)
• Essential Floor assessment (Security, Testing, Error Handling, Observability)
• Inconsistencies and strengths assessment

Output: .humaninloop/memory/codebase-analysis.md following codebase-analysis-template.md

Essential Floor Analysis

Assess each of the four essential floor categories:

Security Assessment

Check	How to Detect	Status Values
Auth at boundaries	Middleware patterns (authenticate, authorize, requireAuth)	present/partial/absent
Secrets from env	.env.example exists, no hardcoded credentials in code	present/partial/absent
Input validation	Schema validation libraries, input checking patterns	present/partial/absent

Indicators to search:

# Auth middleware
grep -r "authenticate\|authorize\|requireAuth\|isAuthenticated" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Environment variables
ls .env.example .env.sample 2>/dev/null
grep -r "process.env\|os.environ\|os.Getenv" src/ 2>/dev/null

# Validation
grep -r "zod\|yup\|joi\|pydantic\|validator" package.json pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null

Testing Assessment

Check	How to Detect	Status Values
Test framework configured	Config files (jest.config.*, pytest.ini, vitest.config.*)	present/partial/absent
Test files present	Files matching *.test.*, *_test.*, test_*.*	present/partial/absent
CI runs tests	Test commands in workflow files	present/partial/absent

Indicators to search:

# Test config
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* pytest.ini pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null

# Test files
find . -name "*.test.*" -o -name "*_test.*" -o -name "test_*.*" 2>/dev/null | head -5

# CI test commands
grep -r "npm test\|yarn test\|pytest\|go test" .github/workflows/ 2>/dev/null

Error Handling Assessment

Check	How to Detect	Status Values
Explicit error types	Custom error classes/types defined	present/partial/absent
Context preservation	Error messages include context, stack traces logged	present/partial/absent
Appropriate status codes	API responses use correct HTTP status codes	present/partial/absent

Indicators to search:

# Custom errors
grep -r "class.*Error\|extends Error\|Exception" src/ 2>/dev/null | head -5

# Error logging
grep -r "error.*context\|error.*stack\|logger.error" src/ 2>/dev/null | head -3

# Status codes
grep -r "status(4\|status(5\|HttpStatus\|status_code" src/ 2>/dev/null | head -3

Observability Assessment

Check	How to Detect	Status Values
Structured logging	Logger config (winston, pino, structlog, logrus)	present/partial/absent
Correlation IDs	Request ID middleware, trace ID patterns	present/partial/absent
No PII in logs	Log sanitization, no email/password in log statements	present/partial/absent

Indicators to search:

# Logger config
grep -r "winston\|pino\|structlog\|logrus\|zap" package.json pyproject.toml go.mod 2>/dev/null

# Correlation IDs
grep -r "requestId\|correlationId\|traceId\|x-request-id" src/ 2>/dev/null | head -3

# PII check (negative - should NOT find these in logs)
grep -r "logger.*email\|logger.*password\|log.*password" src/ 2>/dev/null

Setup-Brownfield Quality Checklist

Before finalizing setup-brownfield analysis:

• Project identity complete (name, language, framework, entry points)
• Directory structure documented with purposes
• Architecture pattern identified with evidence
• Naming conventions documented (files, variables, functions, classes)
• All four Essential Floor categories assessed
• Domain entities extracted with relationships
• External dependencies documented
• Strengths to preserve identified (minimum 2-3)
• Inconsistencies documented with severity
• Recommendations provided for constitution focus

Detection Script

Run the automated detection script for fast, deterministic stack identification:

bash scripts/detect-stack.sh /path/to/project

Output:

{
  "project_type": "nodejs",
  "package_manager": "npm",
  "frameworks": ["express"],
  "orms": ["prisma"],
  "architecture": ["feature-based"],
  "ci_cd": ["github-actions"],
  "files_found": {...}
}

The script detects:

• Project type: nodejs, python, go, rust, java, ruby, flutter, elixir
• Package manager: npm, yarn, pnpm, pip, poetry, cargo, etc.
• Frameworks: express, fastapi, django, nextjs, gin, rails, spring-boot, etc.
• ORMs: prisma, typeorm, sqlalchemy, mongoose, gorm, activerecord, etc.
• Architecture: clean-architecture, mvc, layered, feature-based, serverless, microservices
• CI/CD: github-actions, gitlab-ci, jenkins, circleci, etc.

Usage pattern:

1. Run script first for deterministic baseline
2. Use script output to guide deeper LLM analysis
3. Script findings are ground truth; LLM adds nuance

Manual Detection Commands

For cases where script detection is insufficient:

# Tech stack detection
cat package.json | jq '{name, engines, dependencies}'
cat pyproject.toml
cat .tool-versions .nvmrc .python-version 2>/dev/null

# Architecture detection
ls -d src/domain src/application src/features 2>/dev/null

# CI/CD detection
ls .github/workflows/*.yml .gitlab-ci.yml 2>/dev/null

# Governance detection
ls CODEOWNERS .github/CODEOWNERS docs/CODEOWNERS 2>/dev/null
cat CODEOWNERS 2>/dev/null | head -20

# Test structure
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ 2>/dev/null

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing analysis:

Both Modes:

• Project type and framework correctly identified
• Architecture pattern documented
• File paths cited for all findings

Context Mode:

• Existing linting/formatting config extracted
• CI quality gates analyzed
• Existing governance docs checked (CODEOWNERS, ADRs, CONTRIBUTING.md)
• Approvers identified (from CODEOWNERS or team structure)
• Recommendations provided

Brownfield Mode:

• All entity directories scanned
• All route directories scanned
• Collision risks classified by severity

Setup-Brownfield Mode:

• All Context Mode checks completed
• All four Essential Floor categories assessed
• Strengths and inconsistencies documented
• Output written to .humaninloop/memory/codebase-analysis.md

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Problem	Fix
Assuming framework	Guessing without evidence	Verify with code patterns
Missing directories	Only checking standard paths	Projects vary, explore
Over-extracting	Analyzing every file	Focus on config and patterns
Ignoring governance	Missing existing decisions	Check README, CLAUDE.md, ADRs
Inventing findings	Documenting assumptions	Only report what's found