octocode-research
Performs complex code research and trace analysis across large repositories.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/octocode-research && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/8299" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/octocode-research && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/octocode-research
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.
Use when the user asks to "research code", "how does X work", "where is Y defined", "who calls Z", "trace code flow", "find usages", "explore this library", "understand the codebase", or needs deep code exploration with HTTP-based tool orchestration. For direct MCP tool research without the HTTP server, use octocode-researcher instead.Key capabilities
- →Trace code execution flows
- →Identify function call usages
- →Review pull requests
- →Explore unfamiliar codebases
- →Validate dependencies
How it works
It follows an evidence-first flow of framing, searching, reading, and proving before deciding on a fix.
Inputs & outputs
When to use octocode-research
- →Tracing execution flow
- →Finding code usages
- →Understanding unfamiliar codebases
- →Reviewing pull requests
About this skill
Octocode Research
Evidence before assertion. Find the anchor, read the exact bytes, prove the claim, then answer or patch.
FRAME → CLASSIFY → MODEL → SEARCH → READ EXACT → PROVE → DECIDE/PATCH → VERIFY
That's the full shape, not a checklist to march through. Scale it to the claim: a small lookup gets a cheap read and an honest confidence label; a delete, a merge verdict, or a root cause earns the whole ladder. Skip stages you can already answer — but say which ones you skipped.
The rules
- Open with one line: corpus, actual vs desired, task class, mode, surfaces used and skipped.
- Call it a bug only when evidence shows a supported contract was violated.
- Root cause needs mechanism, trigger, violated contract, divergence boundary, and a killed alternate.
- Use the strongest handle you already hold. For nontrivial claims check two of: structure, stream, connections.
- A snippet is a lead. Empty means this lane can't see it, not it isn't there. Say which you mean.
- Track
claim → evidence → confidence → next check. Cite exact anchors, and only checks that actually ran. - Ask before broad contracts, deletes/renames, thin evidence, or a third unrelated search space. Patch after proof.
Stop when: grounded evidence answers the framed question and the alternate is dead; no cheap next step can change the conclusion; the budget is hit (default 3-5 decisive iterations or ~15 minutes); the last iterations changed no state; retries stay thin, or a license/product/architecture call belongs to the user; a gate blocks (broad contract, delete/rename, clone or run untrusted code, unapproved artifact write); or a skill edit measured flat/worse — revert through references/improve-loop.md. Report the remaining gaps instead of padding certainty.
Workflows
Start with references/algorithm.md (routing, evidence grades) and references/problem-framing.md (is this a bug, feature, enhancement, or still unknown?). Then pick one route by what you're looking at — load references/workflows.md when you need the per-route detail, the load budget per task size, or the handoff receipt between routes:
| Situation | Route |
|---|---|
| This repo, checkout, installed dependency | references/workflow-local.md |
| External repository, npm package, upstream project | references/workflow-external.md |
| Cross-repo connections, local clue → upstream, or remote code needing AST/LSP proof | references/workflow-combination.md |
| Rank an ecosystem — several candidate repos/packages | references/github-landscape.md |
| Something fails and you need the cause | references/workflow-debug.md |
| Plan a coding flow, implement, migrate, patch behavior | references/workflow-change.md |
| Reshape structure or names, keep behavior | references/workflow-refactor.md |
| Validate after a change; review a PR or local diff | references/workflow-pr-review.md |
| Trace connections — callers, imports, references, reachability | references/code-research.md |
Proof depth for any of them: references/code-research.md. General research — Map / Validate / Investigate / Plan across code, packages, docs, and history: references/research-flow.md.
Review runs in three parts: use references/workflow-pr-review.md for target, guidelines, and risk sizing; then references/workflow-pr-review-analysis.md for sizing depth, flow proof, and finding shape; then references/workflow-pr-review-report.md for the verification-gated recommendation and the optional written document.
Reach for these only when they earn it: references/loop-mode.md (evidence keeps flipping), references/long-research.md (durable decision brief), references/researcher-mindset.md (budgets, fan-out, campaign planning).
Load a reference when the current step needs it. Loading all of them is a failure mode.
Tooling
Prefer Octocode MCP tools when exposed. Otherwise npx octocode tools <name> — same 15 tools, same schemas, no loss.
npx octocode context --minimal # what's available
npx octocode tools <name> --scheme --json --compact # read fields — never guess
npx octocode tools <name> --queries '<json>' --compact # run it
Batch up to five queries per call. Orient cheap (tree, discovery) before exact reads. Follow returned next.* and cursors instead of re-deriving them.
Read references/octocode.md when transport, tool choice, auth, gates (ENABLE_LOCAL, ENABLE_CLONE, ENABLE_RELEASES), materialization, diagnostics, or exit codes are unclear.
Output
Finding · Evidence · Confidence · Next. Decisions add verdict, risks, exact anchors, verification, and the smallest safe fix. Report gaps instead of padding certainty.
Related
octocode-brainstorming (worth building?) · octocode-rfc-generator (design contract) · octocode-graph-eval (goal→KPI) · octocode-documentation (docs deliverable) · octocode-skills (skill folders) · octocode-subagent (fan-out) · octocode-roast (critique tone).
When changing this skill, run node scripts/check-description.mjs (description contract; --help for flags) and gate accept/revert with references/improve-loop.md.
When not to use it
- →When performing high-level architectural planning without code-level evidence
Limitations
- →Requires explicit evidence for conclusions
- →Limited to available search spaces
How it compares
This approach mandates evidence-backed proof for every claim, unlike generic code exploration.
Compared to similar skills
octocode-research side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| octocode-research (this skill) | 0 | 3mo | Review | Advanced |
| cursor-explorer-mcp | 6 | 10mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| analyzing-projects | 3 | 7mo | Review | Beginner |
| research-engineer | 2 | 8mo | No flags | Advanced |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
You might also like
cursor-explorer-mcp
sepiabrown
Use for token-expensive operations requiring multi-file analysis - codebase exploration, broad searches, architecture understanding, tracing flows, finding implementations across files. Uses MCP cursor-agent server (company pays) with clean async interface. Do NOT use for single-file analysis, explaining code already in immediate context, or pure reasoning tasks.
analyzing-projects
CloudAI-X
Analyzes codebases to understand structure, tech stack, patterns, and conventions. Use when onboarding to a new project, exploring unfamiliar code, or when asked "how does this work?" or "what's the architecture?"
research-engineer
davila7
An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.
analyse
eschaar
Cross-cutting technical analysis. Investigates impact, tradeoffs, root causes, or feasibility without implementing changes. Use when asked to "analyse this", "investigate the impact", "what are the tradeoffs", "root cause analysis", "is this feasible?", or "compare these approaches". Produces an ana
grill-me
onsenturk
Adversarial Socratic interrogation of an idea, design, plan, or PR. You challenge the user''s assumptions, probe edge cases, and stress-test their reasoning before they commit. Use when the user says "grill me", "challenge this", "poke holes", "play devil''s advocate", "stress-test this", or wants t
architect-review
sickn33
Master software architect specializing in modern architecture patterns, clean architecture, microservices, event-driven systems, and DDD. Reviews system designs and code changes for architectural integrity, scalability, and maintainability. Use PROACTIVELY for architectural decisions.