autopsy

autopsy

Purpose

Full codebase health assessment for legacy projects. Autopsy analyzes complexity, dependency coupling, dead code, tech debt, and git hotspots to produce a health score per module and a prioritized rescue plan. Uses opus for deep analysis quality.

Called By (inbound)

• rescue (L1): Phase 0 RECON — assess damage before refactoring
• onboard (L2): when project appears messy during onboarding
• audit (L2): Phase 3 code quality and complexity assessment
• incident (L2): root cause analysis after containment

Calls (outbound)

• scout (L2): deep structural scan — files, LOC, entry points, imports
• research (L3): identify if tech stack is outdated
• trend-scout (L3): compare against current best practices
• journal (L3): record health assessment findings

Execution Steps

Step 0 — Repo intelligence (if GitHub-hosted)

If the project is a GitHub repository, gather repo-level metrics before diving into code:

# Fetch via GitHub API (requires gh CLI or curl + GITHUB_TOKEN)
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo} --jq '{stars: .stargazers_count, forks: .forks_count, open_issues: .open_issues_count, license: .license.spdx_id, language: .language, topics: .topics, created: .created_at, pushed: .pushed_at}'

# Contributor count and top contributors
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/contributors --jq 'length' 
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/contributors --jq '.[0:5] | .[] | "\(.login): \(.contributions)"'

# Commit frequency (last 52 weeks)
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/stats/commit_activity --jq '[.[] | .total] | add'

# Language byte distribution
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/languages

Record in working notes:

• Activity signal: commits/week (>5 = active, 1-5 = maintained, <1 = stale)
• Bus factor: contributor count (1 = critical risk, 2-3 = low, >5 = healthy)
• Community signal: stars/forks ratio, open issue count, staleness of latest push

Skip this step for local-only projects with no remote.

Step 1 — Structure scan

Call rune:scout with a request for a full project map. Ask scout to return:

• All source files with LOC counts
• Entry points and main modules
• Import/dependency graph (who imports who)
• Test files and their coverage targets
• Config files (tsconfig, eslint, package.json, etc.)

Step 2 — Module analysis

For each major module identified by scout, use Read to open the file and assess:

• LOC (flag anything over 500 as a god file)
• Function count and average function length
• Maximum nesting depth (flag > 4 levels)
• Cyclomatic complexity signals (deep conditionals, many branches)
• Test file presence and estimated coverage

Record findings per module in a working table.

Step 3 — Health scoring

Score each module 0-100 across six dimensions:

Dimension	Weight	Scoring criteria
Complexity	20%	Cyclomatic < 5 = 100, 5-10 = 70, 10-20 = 40, > 20 = 0
Test coverage	25%	> 80% = 100, 50-80% = 60, 20-50% = 30, < 20% = 0
Documentation	15%	README + inline comments = 100, partial = 50, none = 0
Dependencies	20%	Low coupling = 100, medium = 60, high/circular = 0
Code smells	10%	No god files, no deep nesting = 100, each violation -20
Maintenance	10%	Regular commits = 100, stale > 6 months = 50, untouched > 1yr = 0

Compute weighted score per module. Assign risk tier:

• 80-100 = healthy (green)
• 60-79 = watch (yellow)
• 40-59 = at-risk (orange)
• 0-39 = critical (red)

Step 4 — Risk assessment

Use Bash to gather git archaeology data:

# Most changed files (hotspots)
git log --format=format: --name-only | sort | uniq -c | sort -rg | head -20

# Files not touched in over a year
git log --before="1 year ago" --format="%H" | head -1 | xargs -I{} git diff --name-only {}..HEAD

# Authors per file (high author count = high churn risk)
git log --format="%an" -- <file> | sort -u | wc -l

# Commit velocity by month (trend detection)
git log --format="%Y-%m" | sort | uniq -c | tail -12

# Issue/PR close rate (GitHub only)
gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/issues --jq '[.[] | select(.pull_request == null)] | length'

Identify:

• Circular dependencies (A imports B, B imports A)
• God files (> 500 LOC with many importers)
• Hotspot files (changed most often = highest bug density)
• Dead files (no importers, no recent commits)
• Velocity trend: accelerating, stable, or decelerating (compare last 3 months)

Step 5 — Generate RESCUE-REPORT.md

Use Write to save RESCUE-REPORT.md at the project root with this structure:

# Rescue Report: [Project Name]
Generated: [date]

## Overall Health: [score]/100

## Module Health
| Module | Score | Complexity | Coverage | Coupling | Risk | Priority |
|--------|-------|-----------|----------|----------|------|----------|
| [name] | [n]   | [low/med/high] | [%] | [low/med/high] | [tier] | [1-N] |

## Dependency Graph
[Mermaid flowchart of module coupling — use subgraphs for clusters]

## Language Distribution
[Mermaid pie chart — e.g., pie title Languages "TypeScript" : 65 "JavaScript" : 20 "CSS" : 15]

## Commit Velocity (Last 12 Months)
[Trend: accelerating / stable / decelerating — include monthly commit counts]

## Repo Intelligence (GitHub only)
| Metric | Value | Signal |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Stars | [n] | [community interest level] |
| Contributors | [n] | [bus factor: critical/low/healthy] |
| Open issues | [n] | [maintenance signal] |
| Commits/week | [n] | [activity: active/maintained/stale] |
| Last push | [date] | [freshness] |

## Surgery Queue (Priority Order)
1. [module] — Score: [n] — [primary reason] — Suggested pattern: [pattern]
2. ...

## Git Archaeology
- Hotspot files: [list with change frequency]
- Stale files: [list with age]
- Dead code candidates: [list]

## Immediate Actions (Before Surgery)
- [action 1]
- [action 2]

Call rune:journal to record that autopsy ran, the overall health score, and the surgery queue.

Step 6 — Report

Output a summary of the findings:

• Overall health score and tier
• Count of critical, at-risk, watch, and healthy modules
• Top 3 worst modules with scores and recommended patterns
• Confirm RESCUE-REPORT.md was saved
• Recommended next step: call rune:safeguard on the top-priority module

Confidence Scoring

Every finding in the autopsy report MUST carry a confidence level:

Level	Range	Criteria
High	90-100%	Measured directly from code/git — LOC counted, tests run, deps parsed
Medium	70-89%	Inferred from strong signals — file patterns, naming conventions, partial git data
Low	50-69%	Estimated from weak signals — no git history, binary files, generated code

Rules:

• Health scores backed by actual code metrics → High confidence
• Health scores using git archaeology only (no code read) → Medium confidence
• Health scores for modules where files couldn't be read (binary, encrypted, too large) → Low confidence
• Overall report confidence = weighted average of module confidences (by LOC weight)
• Include confidence in RESCUE-REPORT.md header: Confidence: [High|Medium|Low] ([n]%)

Multi-Round Analysis

Autopsy follows a broad-to-narrow pattern to avoid missing systemic issues:

1. Round 1 — Surface scan (Steps 0-1): Repo metrics + structure map. Goal: identify scope and major clusters.
2. Round 2 — Module deep dive (Steps 2-3): Read and score each module. Goal: quantified health per module.
3. Round 3 — Cross-cutting analysis (Step 4): Git archaeology + dependency graph. Goal: find systemic risks invisible at module level (circular deps, hotspot clusters, bus factor).
4. Round 4 — Synthesis (Steps 5-6): Combine all rounds into prioritized report. Findings from later rounds may revise earlier scores.

Do NOT skip rounds. Round 3 cross-cutting analysis frequently reveals risks that per-module analysis misses (e.g., a "healthy" module that is the single point of failure for 10 others).

Health Score Factors

CODE QUALITY    — cyclomatic complexity, nesting depth, function length
DEPENDENCIES    — coupling, circular deps, outdated packages
TEST COVERAGE   — line coverage, branch coverage, test quality
DOCUMENTATION   — inline comments, README, API docs
MAINTENANCE     — git hotspots, commit frequency, author count
DEAD CODE       — unused exports, unreachable branches

Output Format

## Autopsy Report: [Project Name]

### Overall Health: [score]/100 — [tier: healthy | watch | at-risk | critical]

### Module Summary
| Module | Score | Risk | Priority |
|--------|-------|------|----------|
| [name] | [n]   | [tier] | [1-N] |

### Top Issues
1. [module] — [primary finding] — Recommended pattern: [pattern]

### Next Step
Run rune:safeguard on [top-priority module] before any refactoring.

Constraints

1. MUST scan actual code metrics — not estimate from file names
2. MUST produce quantified health score — not vague "needs improvement"
3. MUST identify specific modules with highest technical debt — ranked by severity
4. MUST NOT recommend refactoring everything — prioritize by impact
5. MUST check: test coverage, cyclomatic complexity, dependency freshness, dead code

Sharp Edges

Known failure modes for this skill. Check these before declaring done.

Failure Mode	Severity	Mitigation
Health scores estimated without reading actual code metrics	CRITICAL	Constraint 1: scan actual code — open files, count LOC, assess nesting depth
Recommending refactoring everything without prioritization	HIGH	Constraint 4: rank by severity — worst health score modules first, max top-5
Missing git archaeology (no hotspot/stale file analysis)	MEDIUM	Step 4 bash commands are mandatory — git log data is part of the health picture
Skipping RESCUE-REPORT.md write (only verbal summary)	HIGH	Step 5 write is mandatory — persistence is the point of autopsy
Health score not backed by all 6 dimensions scored	MEDIUM	All 6 dimensions (complexity, test coverage, docs, deps, smells, maintenance) required

Done When

• scout completed with full project map (all files, entry points, import graph)
• All major modules scored across all 6 dimensions
• Git archaeology run (hotspots, stale files, dead code candidates identified)
• RESCUE-REPORT.md written to project root with Mermaid dependency diagram
• journal called with health score and surgery queue
• Autopsy Report emitted with overall health tier and top-3 issues

Returns

Artifact	Format	Location
Health score per module	Scored table (0-100)	inline
RESCUE-REPORT.md	Markdown + Mermaid	project root
Surgery queue (priority order)	Ordered list	RESCUE-REPORT.md
Git archaeology findings	Bash output + summary	inline
Journal entry	Text	via journal L3

Cost Profile

~5000-10000 tokens input, ~2000-4000 tokens output. Opus for deep analysis. Most expensive L2 skill but runs once per rescue.

Scope guardrail: autopsy assesses — it does not refactor. All surgery is delegated to surgeon after the report is complete.

Executive Mode (--executive)

When invoked as /rune autopsy --executive, generate a board-ready HTML health assessment. Requires Business tier.

Executive Execution Steps

1. Standard Autopsy: Run Steps 1-5 (structure scan, module analysis, health scoring, risk assessment, RESCUE-REPORT.md)
2. Org Context: Read .rune/org/org.md for team structure and governance level
3. Cross-Domain Impact: Map module health to business domains (which team owns which modules)
4. Business Risk Translation: Convert technical health scores to business risk language:
   • Critical modules in revenue path → "Revenue infrastructure at risk"
   • Low test coverage on auth → "Security compliance gap"
   • High churn in customer-facing code → "Customer experience degradation risk"
5. HTML Render: Load report-templates/autopsy-executive.html from Business pack and populate all {{placeholder}} fields:
   • SVG health ring (score → stroke-dasharray calculation: score / 100 * 440)
   • Dimension bars (6 dimensions with color coding)
   • Module table (sorted by priority)
   • Surgery queue (top 5 modules)
   • Risk matrix (6 categories)
   • Git archaeology summary
   • Cross-domain impact table
   • Recommended actions (numbered, prioritized)
6. Save: Write HTML to EXECUTIVE-HEALTH.html at project root

Executive Output

EXECUTIVE-HEALTH.html          — Board-ready HTML report
RESCUE-REPORT.md               — Detailed technical report (standard autopsy)
.rune/retros/{date}.json       — Health metrics for trend tracking

Color Coding

Score Range	Color	Tier
80-100	var(--success) #10b981	Healthy
60-79	var(--warning) #f59e0b	Watch
40-59	#f97316 (orange)	At-risk
0-39	var(--danger) #ef4444	Critical

Graceful Degradation

• If no Business pack installed: skip executive mode, produce standard RESCUE-REPORT.md only
• If .rune/org/org.md missing: skip team mapping, show modules without domain ownership
• If org teams don't map to code modules: show "Unmapped" in cross-domain table

External Repo Mode (--external)

When invoked as /rune autopsy --external <github-url>, evaluate someone else's repo for dependency / fork / contribution decisions. Different use case from rescue mode: you cannot run their tests, cannot rely on local Read, and the decision frame is "should I trust this?" not "how do I rescue this?".

When to use --external

• Evaluating a library before adding it as a dependency
• Deciding whether to fork an abandoned project
• Choosing between competing implementations (autopsy --external A vs B)
• Diligence on a candidate acquisition target
• Pre-graft assessment (cross-skill: feeds into graft)

External Execution Steps

Step 1 — Repo Intelligence (no local clone needed)

Use gh api exclusively — do NOT git clone. Faster + cleaner.

URL="$1"  # e.g., github.com/anthropics/claude-code
OWNER_REPO=$(echo "$URL" | sed -E 's|https?://github.com/||; s|/$||')

# Core metadata
gh api "repos/${OWNER_REPO}" --jq '{
  name, full_name, description, language, license: .license.spdx_id,
  stars: .stargazers_count, forks: .forks_count, watchers: .subscribers_count,
  open_issues: .open_issues_count, default_branch,
  created: .created_at, updated: .updated_at, pushed: .pushed_at,
  archived, disabled, topics
}'

# Maintainer responsiveness (issue + PR close rates)
gh api "repos/${OWNER_REPO}/issues?state=closed&per_page=100" --jq '
  [.[] | select(.pull_request == null) | (.closed_at | fromdateiso8601) - (.created_at | fromdateiso8601)] | add / length / 86400'   # avg days-to-close

gh api "repos/${OWNER_REPO}/pulls?state=closed&per_page=100" --jq '
  [.[] | select(.merged_at != null) | (.merged_at | fromdateiso8601) - (.created_at | fromdateiso8601)] | add / length / 86400'   # avg PR merge time

# Release cadence (last 10 releases)
gh api "repos/${OWNER_REPO}/releases?per_page=10" --jq '[.[] | {tag: .tag_name, published: .published_at, prerelease}]'

# Security advisories
gh api "repos/${OWNER_REPO}/security-advisories" --jq 'length' 2>/dev/null || echo "0"

# Dependabot alerts (if accessible — usually not for external repos)
gh api "repos/${OWNER_REPO}/dependabot/alerts" --jq 'length' 2>/dev/null || echo "n/a"

Step 2 — Decision Rubric (not Health Scoring)

External evaluation uses a DIFFERENT rubric than internal rescue. Internal cares about complexity; external cares about TRUST.

Score 0-100 across five dimensions:

Dimension	Weight	Scoring criteria
Activity	25%	Last push < 30d = 100, < 90d = 80, < 1yr = 50, < 2yr = 20, > 2yr = 0
Maintainership	25%	Avg issue-close < 7d = 100, < 30d = 70, < 90d = 40, > 90d = 10. Contributor count: > 10 = bonus +15, 2-10 = no change, 1 = penalty -20 (bus factor)
Adoption	15%	Stars × (production-use signal from dependents): > 10k = 100, > 1k = 70, > 100 = 40, < 100 = 10. Dependent-repo count (via gh api repos/X/Y/network/dependents if available) is the production-use proxy
License	20%	Permissive (MIT/Apache/BSD) = 100. Weak copyleft (MPL/LGPL) = 80. Strong copyleft (GPL) = 40. None / proprietary = 0. Verify SPDX field; flag if null
Security	15%	0 open advisories + recent CVEs addressed = 100. 1-2 unaddressed = 50. > 3 OR critical unaddressed > 30 days = 0. Audit log: check for force-push to default branch, suspicious release commits

Composite score with same risk tiers as internal mode (80+ healthy, 60-79 watch, 40-59 at-risk, 0-39 critical).

Step 3 — Architecture Extraction (without reading every file)

You can't Read every file in an external repo. Extract architecture via metadata:

• Top-level structure via gh api repos/X/Y/contents/ (folder names = module boundaries)
• Tech stack via root manifest files: package.json (deps), Cargo.toml, go.mod, pyproject.toml, requirements.txt. Fetch with gh api repos/X/Y/contents/package.json --jq .content | base64 -d
• Test infrastructure via existence of tests/, __tests__/, *_test.go, etc. (use gh api repos/X/Y/git/trees/HEAD?recursive=1 --jq '.tree[].path' | grep -E '_test|spec')
• CI config via .github/workflows/, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc. (presence = quality signal; recent green builds via gh api repos/X/Y/actions/runs?status=success&per_page=5)
• Documentation depth via README size + docs/ folder existence
• ADRs via search: gh api search/code -X GET --field q="repo:owner/repo path:docs filename:adr*"

Step 4 — Comparative Mode (optional)

When called as /rune autopsy --external A --external B, produce side-by-side comparison:

| Dimension       | Repo A        | Repo B        | Winner |
|-----------------|---------------|---------------|--------|
| Activity        | 95 (active)   | 30 (stale)    | A      |
| Maintainership  | 80            | 60            | A      |
| Adoption        | 70            | 90            | B      |
| License         | 100 (MIT)     | 40 (GPL)      | A      |
| Security        | 100 (clean)   | 85 (1 open)   | A      |
| **Composite**   | **89**        | **57**        | **A**  |

Recommendation: A — significantly healthier on 4/5 dimensions.

Step 5 — Output

Write EXTERNAL-REPO-REPORT.md at project root (or operator-specified path):

# External Repo Evaluation: [owner/repo]
Generated: [date]
Decision: [DEPEND | FORK | CONTRIBUTE | AVOID]
Composite Score: [N]/100 ([tier])

## Quick Verdict
[1-2 sentence summary of why this score]

## Decision Rubric (5 dimensions)
[Table per Step 2]

## Activity Signal
- Last push: [date]
- Commits last 90 days: [N]
- Trend: [accelerating | stable | decelerating]

## Maintainership Signal
- Contributor count: [N] ([bus factor: critical/low/healthy])
- Avg issue close: [N] days
- Avg PR merge: [N] days
- Top contributor: [@user] ([N]% of commits — concentration risk if > 80%)

## Adoption Signal
- Stars: [N] · Forks: [N] · Watchers: [N]
- Dependent repos: [N]
- Notable users: [list if known via gh dependents API or readme mentions]

## License
- SPDX: [identifier]
- Compatibility: [compatible with our project's license | flag legal review]

## Security
- Open advisories: [N]
- Recent CVEs: [count + latest date]
- Audit log flags: [force-push events / suspicious releases / none]

## Architecture (extracted, not read)
- Tech stack: [languages + frameworks from manifest]
- Test infrastructure: [present | absent]
- CI status: [N recent green builds | failing | none configured]
- Documentation depth: [README size + docs/ folder presence]

## Confidence
[High | Medium | Low] — based on API data completeness; external mode confidence rarely exceeds Medium because we cannot run tests or read every file.

## Recommendation
[DEPEND | FORK | CONTRIBUTE | AVOID] with rationale grounded in the dimensions above. If FORK is recommended, link to the activity signal showing why (e.g., "last push > 1 year + 12 unaddressed PRs + critical bug filed").

External Mode Constraints

1. MUST use gh api only — do NOT git clone (external mode is API-driven by design; clones add ~30 seconds + disk usage for no analytical gain)
2. MUST compute all 5 dimensions OR explicitly mark "insufficient data" for any that can't be measured (e.g., no advisories endpoint access)
3. MUST cap confidence at Medium for external evaluations — internal Read-based scoring is High; external API-only is Medium at best
4. MUST output decision verdict (DEPEND / FORK / CONTRIBUTE / AVOID) — not "needs more research"
5. MUST flag license compatibility if SPDX is null, GPL, or proprietary
6. MUST NOT skip Security dimension even if API returns empty — explicitly note "no advisories found" vs "advisories endpoint inaccessible"

Graceful Degradation (External Mode)

• If gh CLI not authenticated: fall back to curl with GITHUB_TOKEN env var; document rate-limit risk (60 unauth / 5000 auth per hour)
• If repo is private + no auth: report partial — public-API-only signals; flag confidence as Low
• If repo is fork: trace upstream and offer "compare with upstream" sub-option
• If repo is archived: auto-flag — composite caps at 30 regardless of other dimensions; archived repos are AVOID by default unless operator overrides

Hand-offs (External Mode)

External evaluation produces a verdict that flows to other skills:

• DEPEND → cross-skill: dependency-doctor for vulnerability scan integration
• FORK → cross-skill: graft to plan the fork + adapt
• CONTRIBUTE → cross-skill: review-intake (PR-style workflow for the contribution)
• AVOID → terminate; document rationale in .rune/decisions/