Analyzes URLs to see if they align with project goals and automates GitHub issue creation based on a verdict.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/scout && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/13590" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/scout && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/scout
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.
Analyze external URL to evaluate fit with oh-my-customcodex project and auto-create GitHub issue with verdictKey capabilities
- →Analyze external URLs for project fit
- →Categorize external resources into INTERNALIZE, INTEGRATE, or SKIP
- →Create GitHub issues with structured verdicts and labels
- →Fetch and summarize web page content from a given URL
- →Load project philosophy and existing skills for context
How it works
The skill fetches and summarizes content from an external URL, loads the project's philosophy and existing skills, then analyzes the content against predefined dimensions to determine its fit. Finally, it creates a GitHub issue with a structured verdict.
Inputs & outputs
When to use scout
- →Evaluate new tech blog content
- →Check if library fits project
- →Audit external tool relevance
About this skill
/scout — External Link Analysis
Analyze an external URL (tech blog, tool, library, methodology) to evaluate its fit with the oh-my-customcodex project and auto-create a GitHub issue with a structured verdict.
Sensitive-Path Delegation
Sensitive-path compatibility note: if this skill delegates work that touches .claude/**, .claude/outputs/**, templates/.claude/**, or read-only measurements of those paths, keep .codex/** edits on the normal Codex path. On Claude Code v2.1.121+ with bypassPermissions, direct writes to .claude/skills/, .claude/agents/, and .claude/commands/ are allowed; on v2.1.126+ that extends to broader protected paths. Only use /tmp/{skill}-{timestamp}.md as a legacy fallback when the target runtime is older or still prompts.
Usage
/scout <url>
/scout https://news.hada.io/topic?id=27673
/scout https://github.com/user/repo
Verdict Taxonomy
| Verdict | Meaning | Label | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|
| INTERNALIZE | Aligns with project philosophy; should become a skill/agent/guide | scout:internalize + P1/P2/P3 | /research or direct implementation |
| INTEGRATE | Useful but best kept as external dependency | scout:integrate + P2/P3 | Plugin/MCP integration review |
| SKIP | Irrelevant or duplicates existing functionality | scout:skip | Issue created then closed |
Pre-flight Guards
Pre-flight Execution Checklist (MANDATORY before Phase 1)
Both guards MUST be executed before entering Phase 1. Skipping either guard is a workflow violation.
- Guard 1: URL Validity check passed (abort if invalid)
- Guard 2: Duplicate Scout check passed (warn and confirm if duplicate found)
Proceed to Phase 1 only after both checkboxes are satisfied.
Guard 1: URL Validity (GATE)
Before any work, validate the URL:
# Check URL is syntactically valid
echo "$URL" | grep -qE '^https?://'
If invalid: [Pre-flight] GATE: Invalid or unreachable URL. Please check and retry. — abort.
Guard 2: Duplicate Scout (WARN)
Search existing GitHub issues for prior scout reports on the same URL domain:
DOMAIN=$(echo "$URL" | sed 's|https\?://||' | cut -d'/' -f1)
gh issue list --state all --label "scout:internalize,scout:integrate,scout:skip" \
--json number,title,body --jq ".[] | select(.body | contains(\"$DOMAIN\"))" 2>/dev/null
If found: [Pre-flight] WARN: Similar URL already scouted in issue #N. Proceed anyway? [Y/n]
Why mandatory? Guard 2 생략으로 인해 동일 도메인 중복 scout 이슈가 생성된 사례 발생. 중복 triage 낭비를 방지하기 위해 Pre-flight 체크리스트로 승격.
Display Format
Before execution, show the plan:
[Scout] {url}
├── Phase 1: 콘텐츠 수집 및 요약
├── Phase 2: 프로젝트 철학 로드
├── Phase 3: 적합성 분석 (frontier/medium)
└── Phase 4: 이슈 생성
예상: ~1분 | 비용: ~$0.5-1.5
실행하시겠습니까? [Y/n]
암묵 승인 시 필수: "되면 /scout으로 보고", "실행해줘" 등 묵시적 승인인 경우에도 위 plan 요약을 반드시 1줄 이상 표시한 뒤 진행한다. plan 표시 없이 바로 Phase 1으로 진입하지 않는다.
Workflow
Phase 1: Fetch & Summarize
WebFetch(url)— retrieve page content- Extract core information:
- Title and purpose
- Key technology / methodology
- Approach and principles
- If fetch fails — report error, abort
External quantitative-fact source tagging (#1466): WebFetch가 산출한 구체적 정량 주장(benchmark 수치, table 값, metric)은 이슈 본문에
WebFetch-derived (unverified)로 태깅한다 — 검증된 사실로 제시하지 않는다. WebFetch 캐시/요약은 독립 ground-truth가 아니므로, load-bearing 수치는 primary PDF/원문으로 1회 검증하거나 명시적으로 unverified로 표기한다. (R020 Read-Before-Characterize, R023 Verifier Ground-Truth)
Phase 2: Load Project Philosophy
Read(AGENTS.md)— extract architecture philosophy:- Compilation metaphor (source -> build -> artifact)
- Separation of concerns (R006)
- Dynamic agent creation ("no expert? create one")
- Skill/agent/guide/rule structure
Read(README.md)— extract project overview and component inventoryGlob(.codex/skills/*/SKILL.md)— list existing skills for overlap detection
Phase 3: Fit Analysis
Spawn 1 frontier/medium agent with the following analysis prompt.
Claude compatibility
Agentcalls only (R010 “Delegated Permission Ownership”): Passmode: "bypassPermissions"when the active Claude session uses bypass permissions. Native Codexspawn_agenthas nomodeparameter; use the installedagent_typeand active Codex runtime permissions instead.
Inputs:
- Fetched content summary (Phase 1)
- Project philosophy context (Phase 2)
- Existing skill list (Phase 2)
Analysis dimensions:
| Dimension | Question |
|---|---|
| Philosophy alignment | Does it match the compilation metaphor, separation of concerns, "create experts on demand"? |
| Technical fit | Does it complement or overlap with existing skills/agents/guides? |
| Integration effort | How much work to internalize vs. use externally? |
| Value proposition | What concrete benefit does it bring to the project? |
Agent prompt template:
You are a project fit analyst. Given:
1. External content summary:
{phase1_summary}
2. Project philosophy:
{phase2_philosophy}
3. Existing skills ({skill_count} total):
{skill_list}
Analyze the external content against the project philosophy across 4 dimensions:
- Philosophy alignment
- Technical fit (overlap with existing skills?)
- Integration effort (XS/S/M/L)
- Value proposition
Return a structured verdict:
- verdict: INTERNALIZE | INTEGRATE | SKIP
- priority: P1 | P2 | P3
- rationale: 2-3 sentences
- philosophy_table: criterion/fit/rationale for each dimension
- recommendation: specific integration plan or skip reason
- next_steps: 2-3 actionable items
- IMPORTANT: Write all analysis output in Korean. Technical terms, code references, label names, and skill/agent names stay in English.
- escalation: true/false (INTERNALIZE + M/L effort = true)
Output: Structured verdict with rationale.
Phase 4: Issue Creation
NOTE: Phase 4 is normally handled by the orchestrator with
gh issue create. If issue creation is delegated through a Claude compatibilityAgentcall, passmode: "bypassPermissions"only when that Claude session uses bypass permissions. Native Codexspawn_agentnever acceptsmode.
- Ensure scout labels exist (defensive, idempotent):
gh label create "scout:internalize" --color "0E8A16" --description "Scout: should be internalized" 2>/dev/null || true
gh label create "scout:integrate" --color "1D76DB" --description "Scout: keep as external" 2>/dev/null || true
gh label create "scout:skip" --color "D4C5F9" --description "Scout: skip" 2>/dev/null || true
- Create GitHub issue:
gh issue create \
--title "[scout:{verdict}] {content_title}" \
--label "scout:{verdict},P{n}" \
--body "{issue_body}"
- If verdict is
SKIP: auto-close the issue:
gh issue close {number} -c "Auto-closed: scout verdict is SKIP"
Issue Body Template
## Scout 리포트: {title}
**출처**: {url}
**판정**: {INTERNALIZE / INTEGRATE / SKIP}
**우선순위**: {P1 / P2 / P3}
## 요약
{외부 콘텐츠에 대한 2-3문장 요약}
## 프로젝트 철학 정합성
| 기준 | 적합 | 근거 |
|------|------|------|
| Compilation metaphor | {check/cross} | {설명} |
| Separation of concerns (R006) | {check/cross} | {설명} |
| Dynamic agent creation | {check/cross} | {설명} |
| 기존 스킬 중복 | {check/cross} | {중복 스킬 목록} |
## 권장 사항
{구체적 통합 계획 — 어떤 skill/agent/guide를 생성할지, 또는 건너뛰는 이유}
## 다음 단계
- [ ] {후속 조치 1}
- [ ] {후속 조치 2}
---
`/scout`에 의해 생성됨
Escalation
When verdict is INTERNALIZE and integration effort is M or L:
[Advisory] 심층 분석 권장.
└── 실행 검토: /research {url}
Result Display
[Scout 완료] {title}
├── 판정: {INTERNALIZE / INTEGRATE / SKIP}
├── 우선순위: {P1 / P2 / P3}
├── 이슈: #{number}
└── 에스컬레이션: {/research 권장 | 없음}
Capability Routing
| Phase | Lane / Effort | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 (Fetch) | orchestrator | Simple WebFetch, no agent needed |
| Phase 2 (Load) | orchestrator | Simple Read/Glob, no agent needed |
| Phase 3 (Analysis) | frontier/medium | Balanced reasoning for fit analysis |
| Phase 4 (Issue) | orchestrator | gh issue create via Bash |
Integration
| Rule | How |
|---|---|
| R009 | Single agent in Phase 3 — no parallelism needed |
| R010 | Orchestrator manages phases 1/2/4; analysis delegated to frontier/medium agent in Phase 3 |
| R015 | Display scout plan before execution (Display Format section) |
When NOT to Use
| Scenario | Better Alternative |
|---|---|
| Deep multi-source research | /research <url> |
| Internal project analysis | /omcustomcodex:analysis |
| Known tool evaluation | Direct agent conversation |
| Bulk URL analysis (5+) | /research with URL list |
Differences from /research
| Aspect | /scout | /research |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Quick fit evaluation | Deep multi-dimensional analysis |
| Teams | 1 agent | 10 teams |
| Cost | Runtime-dependent, one analysis role | Runtime-dependent, bounded team workflow |
| Duration | 1-2 min | 10-20 min |
| Output | Issue with verdict | Full report with ADOPT/ADAPT/AVOID |
| When | First contact with new link | Deep dive after scout recommends |
When not to use it
- →When analyzing internal project components
- →When evaluating a known tool directly through agent conversation
Limitations
- →Requires URL validity check before proceeding
- →Requires a duplicate scout check to warn about existing issues
- →If fetch fails, the process reports an error and aborts
How it compares
This skill automates the evaluation of external resources and the creation of GitHub issues with structured verdicts, providing a standardized and traceable process compared to manual assessment and issue creation.
Compared to similar skills
scout side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| scout (this skill) | 0 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| competitive-intel | 2 | 2mo | No flags | Advanced |
| github-issues | 0 | 3mo | No flags | Beginner |
| discovery-workflow | 0 | 4mo | No flags | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by baekenough
View all by baekenough →You might also like
competitive-intel
alirezarezvani
Systematic competitor tracking that feeds CMO positioning, CRO battlecards, and CPO roadmap decisions. Use when analyzing competitors, building sales battlecards, tracking market moves, positioning against alternatives, or when user mentions competitive intelligence, competitive analysis, competitor research, battlecards, win/loss, or market positioning.
github-issues
vladmandic
Read SD.Next GitHub issues with the literal string [Issue] in the title and produce a phased markdown report: short summary first, then status, then suggested next steps per issue.
discovery-workflow
LazyWorkshopCreate
Use when researching a topic, discovering or clarifying requirements, tracing evidence, or investigating a technical spike (research, investigation, topic research, technology evaluation, domain analysis, findings report, requirements discovery, elicitation, requirements document, feature definition
discovery
ValerianGuivarch
>
INDUSTRY_RND
neej4
INDUSTRY_RND — an agent skill by neej4.
product-manager-toolkit
davila7
Comprehensive toolkit for product managers including RICE prioritization, customer interview analysis, PRD templates, discovery frameworks, and go-to-market strategies. Use for feature prioritization, user research synthesis, requirement documentation, and product strategy development.