flow-next-prime
A readiness assessment tool that scans codebases for 48 criteria across 8 pillars to prepare them for AI agent integration.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/flow-next-prime && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/8799" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/flow-next-prime && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/flow-next-prime
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Comprehensive codebase assessment for agent and production readiness. Scans 8 pillars (48 criteria), verifies commands work, checks GitHub settings. Reports everything, fixes agent readiness only. Triggers on /flow-next:prime.Key capabilities
- →Scores codebase against 48 readiness criteria
- →Generates reports on agent and production health
- →Automates remediation for agent-specific readiness issues
- →Validates existence of local setup scripts and documentation
How it works
Scans project directories for missing configuration files, hooks, and documentation; executes automated patches for common environment gaps.
Inputs & outputs
When to use flow-next-prime
- →Evaluate codebase for AI agent compatibility
- →Identify missing local setup requirements
- →Check production readiness criteria
- →Automate readiness reporting
About this skill
Flow Prime
Comprehensive codebase assessment inspired by Factory.ai's Agent Readiness framework.
Role: readiness assessor, improvement proposer Goal: full visibility into codebase health, targeted fixes for agent readiness
Two-Tier Assessment
| Category | Pillars | What Happens |
|---|---|---|
| Agent Readiness | 1-5 | Scored, maturity level calculated, fixes offered |
| Production Readiness | 6-8 | Reported for awareness, no fixes offered |
This gives you full visibility while keeping remediation focused on what actually helps agents work.
Criteria counts live in pillars.md, never here. pillars.md is the single census source (the legacy scored criteria feeding the maturity level, the informational rows, and the new agent-readiness tier groups AO/DR/TO/HP). Do not restate a count in this file - a hardcoded number drifts the moment a criterion is added. The classification, operability ladder, per-shape playbooks, per-stack matrix, and harness check-set live in the four reference files: classification.md, playbooks.md, stacks.md, harness.md.
Why This Matters
Existence checks lie. A repo can carry a CLAUDE.md, a hook file, and a lint script yet be un-agentic in practice - the file is an empty template, the build is broken, imports don't resolve, or it is really one of 99 sibling repos. Prime judges substance, not existence, and names the single highest-leverage next action.
Agents waste cycles when:
- No closed verify loop → can't confirm a change works without a full CI round-trip; the feedback gate belongs at the RIGHT layer (edit-time/commit format+lint, tests via the verify command + acceptance requirements + CI required check - never a test-running pre-commit hook agents
--no-verifyaround or stall on) - Undocumented env vars → guesses, fails, guesses again
- No agent instruction file (or a generic/stale one) → doesn't know project conventions, the operability tier, or which files are off-limits
- The app can't be built or driven → can't verify changes work; a legacy stack with no headless build has no feedback loop at all
These are environment problems, not agent problems. Prime grades them as layered gates and helps fix the ones that help agents work.
Input
Full request: $ARGUMENTS
Accepts:
- No arguments (scans current repo)
--report-onlyorreport only(skip remediation, just show report)--fix-allorfix all(apply all agent readiness fixes without asking)--classify-onlyorclassify only(print the Phase 0.5 classification block and EXIT - the cheap portfolio-triage sweep over many repos; see classification.md)- A path to a different repo root (first non-flag argument)
Examples:
/flow-next:prime/flow-next:prime --report-only/flow-next:prime --classify-only ~/other-project/flow-next:prime ~/other-project
Resolve ROOT from $ARGUMENTS (the first non-flag token; default .). If ROOT is not the
cwd, it MUST thread through everything: cd "$ROOT" before the .flow/meta.json pre-check, the
Phase 0.5 classification probes (the flowctl prime classify emitter takes ROOT as its positional
argument, e.g. flowctl prime classify --json "$ROOT"), and the Phase 2 verification commands; and
every scout dispatch prompt in Phase 1 starts "Assess the repo at ROOT" (scouts scan cwd by default
- without this they'd scan the wrong repo and the report would be confidently wrong end-to-end). If
threading
ROOTisn't feasible, error rather than silently scan cwd.
Route Before Reading References
Parse the mode before loading any reference:
--classify-only: read classification.md directly, run its emitter + judgment-layer contract, print its fixed classification block, and EXIT. Do not readworkflow.md,pillars.md,playbooks.md, orremediation.md; never ask, dispatch scouts, verify, report, or remediate.- All other modes: read workflow.md and execute it. The
workflow loads classification, pillars, playbooks, stacks, harness, and
remediation guidance only at their consuming phases.
--report-onlystops after the report and must never load remediation templates.
This dispatch is fail-open for an unknown/malformed mode: use the full workflow, never silently skip assessment or safety instructions.
The Eight Pillars
Agent Readiness (Pillars 1-5) — Fixes Offered
| Pillar | What It Checks |
|---|---|
| 1. Style & Validation | Linters, formatters, type checking, pre-commit hooks |
| 2. Build System | Build tools, commands, lock files, monorepo tooling |
| 3. Testing | Test framework, commands, coverage, verification |
| 4. Documentation | README, CLAUDE.md, setup docs, architecture |
| 5. Dev Environment | .env.example, Docker, devcontainer, runtime version |
Production Readiness (Pillars 6-8) — Report Only
| Pillar | What It Checks |
|---|---|
| 6. Observability | Logging, tracing, metrics, error tracking, health endpoints |
| 7. Security | Branch protection, secret scanning, CODEOWNERS, Dependabot |
| 8. Workflow & Process | CI/CD, PR templates, issue templates, release automation |
Workflow
The mode router above selects the entry reference. Do not pre-read references for branches that will not execute.
Maturity Levels (Agent Readiness)
The maturity level is secondary metadata, NOT the headline. The report LEADS with the verdict headline - classification line + operability tier + hard-gate status + top-5 ranked next-actions (see playbooks.md). The level moves below the scores table: at portfolio scale a bare "Level 5" from existence checks is exactly the false signal this skill exists to retire. The level still computes for cross-repo comparability, but a reader acts on the ranked actions, not the badge.
| Level | Name | Description | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Minimal | Basic project structure only | <30% |
| 2 | Functional | Can build and run, limited docs | 30-49% |
| 3 | Standardized | Agent-ready for routine work | 50-69% |
| 4 | Optimized | Fast feedback loops, comprehensive docs | 70-84% |
| 5 | Autonomous | Full autonomous operation capable | 85%+ |
Level 3 is the target for most teams. Don't over-engineer.
The score band above is necessary but NOT sufficient. The maturity level ALSO requires the per-pillar floors defined in pillars.md (Level 3 needs every pillar ≥40%, L4 ≥60%, L5 ≥80%). pillars.md is the single source — compute the level there, not from this table alone, or a repo at 72% overall with one 45% pillar gets reported "Level 4" when it's Level 3.
What Gets Fixed vs Reported
| Pillars | Category | Remediation |
|---|---|---|
| 1-5 | Agent Readiness | ✅ Fixes offered via AskUserQuestion |
| 6-8 | Production Readiness | ❌ Reported only, address independently |
Guardrails
General
- Never modify code files (only config, docs, scripts)
- Never commit changes (leave for user to review)
- Never delete files
- Respect .gitignore patterns
User Consent
- MUST use
AskUserQuestiontool for consent (callToolSearchwithselect:AskUserQuestionfirst if its schema isn't loaded). Never just print questions as text. (sync-codex.sh rewrites this to a plain-text numbered prompt in the Codex mirror.) - Always ask before modifying existing files — except under
--fix-all, which waives the prompt for append/merge edits (adding a.gitignoreline, augmenting an agent file, appending a hook) INCLUDING their required devDependencies for the Critical/High/Medium tiers.--fix-allstill does NOT: overwrite/replace existing file content unseen, touch the Bonus tier (devcontainer, CI workflow — those stay explicit-request-only), or bypass the glossary read-back gate. A destructive overwrite always needs consent even under--fix-all. - Don't add dependencies without consent (a Critical/High/Medium fix's own devDeps are covered by that fix's consent, incl.
--fix-all; never add unrelated deps) - Glossary terms are never written unseen — the Phase 5.5 bootstrap shows the full proposal (term + definition + file-ref evidence) at read-back before any
flowctl glossary add;--fix-alldoes not bypass this gate, and a populated glossary (total_terms > 0) is never rewritten
--fix-all boundaries (resolutions 5/6)
--fix-all auto-applies ONLY in-ROOT, non-structural, non-harness fixes at the Critical/High/Medium tier - the in-root Pillars 1-5 fixes PLUS scored-group agent-file content whose catalog row is marked --fix-all-eligible in its consent column (the ranked catalog carries the tier AND consent columns and is authoritative on which scored-group items qualify - see playbooks.md). It NEVER waives consent for:
- Anything outside the repo
ROOT- the home-base / constellation kit (parent instruction file,repos.yaml, run-everything scripts) is always explicit-consent-only. - Any harness settings/hook file - deny/ask rule scaffolds, hook wiring, MCP config. A scaffolded hook is exercised in the same pass (never a stub); the offer itself still needs explicit consent.
- All structural / playbook artifacts - a generated map, nested per-package instruction files, the home base, the greenfield bootstrap plan. Structural = restructures the repo → explicit consent regardless of tier.
- On greenfield,
--fix-allapplies ONLY to exercised hygiene files (.gitignore, lockfile,.env.example,.editorconfig) - never structural or generated artifacts, and never a bulk-generated instruction file (measured harm).
Re-run reuse (resolution 6): a Phase 7 re-assessment reuses the session's Phase 0.5 class
Content truncated.
When not to use it
- →When performing deep security audits outside of project readiness
- →If you need to remediate production readiness issues (tool only fixes agent issues)
Prerequisites
Limitations
- →Does not provide automated remediation for production readiness issues
- →Requires existing project structure to analyze readiness criteria
How it compares
It focuses specifically on environmental configuration gaps that prevent agents from running effectively, rather than code quality alone.
Compared to similar skills
flow-next-prime side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| flow-next-prime (this skill) | 0 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| requesting-code-review | 5 | 3mo | Review | Intermediate |
| bat | 0 | 5mo | Review | Intermediate |
| ln-513-agent-reviewer | 0 | 5mo | No flags | Advanced |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by gmickel
View all by gmickel →You might also like
requesting-code-review
obra
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
bat
homeassistant-ai
Run bot acceptance tests to validate MCP tools work correctly from a real AI agent's perspective. Use when testing PRs, detecting regressions, or verifying tool changes end-to-end with Claude/Gemini CLIs.
ln-513-agent-reviewer
Rieki777
Runs parallel external agent reviews (Codex + Gemini) on code changes. Process-as-arrive, critical verification with debate. Returns filtered suggestions.
test-plan
quran
Generates a comprehensive testing plan based on the current branch changes or a specific PR. Use when creating QA checklists, test plans, or verifying PR readiness.
multi-agent-brainstorming
sickn33
Use this skill when a design or idea requires higher confidence, risk reduction, or formal review. This skill orchestrates a structured, sequential multi-agent design review where each agent has a strict, non-overlapping role. It prevents blind spots, false confidence, and premature convergence.
gate-review
live-input-vector-output-node
Verify planned or implemented changes against active rules, scope lock, and required checks.