name: analyze description: Perform initial analysis of a codebase - detect tech stack, directory structure, and completeness. This is Step 1 of the 6-step reverse engineering process that transforms incomplete applications into spec-driven codebases. Automatically detects programming languages, frameworks, architecture patterns, and generates comprehensive analysis-report.md. Use when starting reverse engineering on any codebase.

Initial Analysis

Step 1 of 6 in the Reverse Engineering to Spec-Driven Development process.

Estimated Time: 5 minutes Output: analysis-report.md

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

Starting reverse engineering on a new or existing codebase
Need to understand tech stack and architecture before making changes
Want to assess project completeness and identify gaps
First time analyzing this project with the toolkit
User asks "analyze this codebase" or "what's in this project?"

Trigger Phrases:

"Analyze this codebase"
"What tech stack is this using?"
"How complete is this application?"
"Run initial analysis"
"Start reverse engineering process"

What This Skill Does

This skill performs comprehensive initial analysis by:

Asking which path you want - Greenfield (new app) or Brownfield (manage existing)
Auto-detecting application context - Identifies programming languages, frameworks, and build systems
Analyzing directory structure - Maps architecture patterns and key components
Scanning existing documentation - Assesses current documentation quality
Estimating completeness - Evaluates how complete the implementation is
Generating analysis report - Creates analysis-report.md with all findings
Storing path choice - Saves your selection to guide subsequent steps

Choose Your Path

FIRST: Determine which path aligns with your goals.

Path A: Greenfield (Build New App from Business Logic)

Use when:

Building a new application based on existing app's business logic
Migrating to a different tech stack
Want flexibility in implementation choices
Need platform-agnostic specifications

Result:

Specifications focus on WHAT, not HOW
Business requirements only
Can implement in any technology
Tech-stack agnostic

Example: "Extract the business logic from this Rails app so we can rebuild it in Next.js"

Path B: Brownfield (Manage Existing with Spec Kit)

Use when:

Managing an existing codebase with GitHub Spec Kit
Want spec-code validation with /speckit.analyze
Planning upgrades or refactoring
Need specs that match current implementation exactly

Result:

Specifications include both WHAT and HOW
Business logic + technical implementation
Tech-stack prescriptive
/speckit.analyze can validate alignment

Example: "Add GitHub Spec Kit to this Next.js app so we can manage it with specs going forward"

Batch Session Auto-Configuration

Before showing questions, check for batch session by walking up directories:

# Function to find batch session file (walks up like .git search)
find_batch_session() {
  local current_dir="$(pwd)"
  while [[ "$current_dir" != "/" ]]; do
    if [[ -f "$current_dir/.stackshift-batch-session.json" ]]; then
      echo "$current_dir/.stackshift-batch-session.json"
      return 0
    fi
    current_dir="$(dirname "$current_dir")"
  done
  return 1
}

# Check if batch session exists
BATCH_SESSION=$(find_batch_session)
if [[ -n "$BATCH_SESSION" ]]; then
  echo "✅ Using batch session configuration from: $BATCH_SESSION"
  cat "$BATCH_SESSION" | jq '.answers'
  # Auto-apply answers from batch session
  # Skip questionnaire entirely
fi

If batch session exists:

Walk up directory tree to find .stackshift-batch-session.json
Load answers from found batch session file
Show: "Using batch session configuration: route=osiris, spec_output=~/git/specs, ..."
Skip all questions below
Proceed directly to analysis with pre-configured answers
Save answers to local .stackshift-state.json as usual

Example directory structure:

~/git/osiris/
  ├── .stackshift-batch-session.json  ← Batch session here
  ├── ws-vehicle-details/
  │   └── [agent working here finds parent session]
  ├── ws-hours/
  │   └── [agent working here finds parent session]
  └── ws-contact/
      └── [agent working here finds parent session]

If no batch session:

Continue with normal questionnaire below

Step 1: Auto-Detect Application Type

Before asking questions, detect what kind of application this is:

# Check repository name and structure
REPO_NAME=$(basename $(pwd))
PARENT_DIR=$(basename $(dirname $(pwd)))

# Detection patterns (in priority order)
# Add your own patterns here for your framework/architecture!

# Monorepo service detection
if [[ "$PARENT_DIR" == "services" || "$PARENT_DIR" == "apps" ]] && [ -f "../../package.json" ]; then
  DETECTION="monorepo-service"
  echo "📦 Detected: Monorepo Service (services/* or apps/* directory)"

# Nx workspace detection
elif [ -f "nx.json" ] || [ -f "../../nx.json" ]; then
  DETECTION="nx-app"
  echo "⚡ Detected: Nx Application"

# Turborepo detection
elif [ -f "turbo.json" ] || [ -f "../../turbo.json" ]; then
  DETECTION="turborepo-package"
  echo "🚀 Detected: Turborepo Package"

# Lerna package detection
elif [ -f "lerna.json" ] || [ -f "../../lerna.json" ]; then
  DETECTION="lerna-package"
  echo "📦 Detected: Lerna Package"

# Generic application (default)
else
  DETECTION="generic"
  echo "🔍 Detected: Generic Application"
fi

echo "Detection type: $DETECTION"

How Detection Patterns Work:

Detection identifies WHAT patterns to look for during analysis:

monorepo-service: Look for shared packages, inter-service calls, monorepo structure
nx-app: Look for project.json, workspace deps, Nx-specific patterns
generic: Standard application analysis

Add Your Own Patterns:

# Example: Custom framework detection
# elif [[ "$REPO_NAME" =~ ^my-widget- ]]; then
#   DETECTION="my-framework-widget"
#   echo "🎯 Detected: My Framework Widget"

Detection determines what to analyze, but NOT how to spec it!

Step 2: Initial Questionnaire

Now that we know what kind of application this is, let's configure the extraction approach:

Question 1: Choose Your Route

Which path best aligns with your goals?

A) Greenfield: Extract for migration to new tech stack
   → Extract business logic only (tech-agnostic)
   → Can implement in any stack
   → Suitable for platform migrations
   → Example: Extract Rails app business logic → rebuild in Next.js

B) Brownfield: Extract for maintaining existing codebase
   → Extract business logic + technical details (tech-prescriptive)
   → Manage existing codebase with specs
   → Suitable for in-place improvements
   → Example: Add specs to Express API for ongoing maintenance

This applies to ALL detection types:

Monorepo Service + Greenfield = Business logic for platform migration
Monorepo Service + Brownfield = Full implementation for maintenance
Nx App + Greenfield = Business logic for rebuild
Nx App + Brownfield = Full Nx/Angular details for refactoring
Generic + Greenfield = Business logic for rebuild
Generic + Brownfield = Full implementation for management

Question 2: Implementation Framework

Which implementation framework do you want to use?

A) GitHub Spec Kit (Recommended for most projects)
   → Feature-level specifications in .specify/
   → Task-driven implementation with /speckit.* commands
   → Simpler, lightweight workflow
   → Best for: small-medium projects, focused features

B) BMAD Method (For larger/enterprise projects)
   → Uses same reverse-engineering docs as Spec Kit
   → Hands off to BMAD's collaborative PM/Architect agents
   → BMAD creates PRD + Architecture through conversation
   → Best for: large projects, multi-team, enterprise

After StackShift extracts documentation (Gear 2):
- Both frameworks get the same 9 docs in docs/reverse-engineering/
- Spec Kit: Gears 3-6 create .specify/ specs, use /speckit.implement
- BMAD: Skip to Gear 6, hand off to *workflow-init with rich context

Question 3: Brownfield Mode (If Brownfield selected)

Do you want to upgrade dependencies after establishing specs?

A) Standard - Just create specs for current state
   → Document existing implementation as-is
   → Specs match current code exactly
   → Good for maintaining existing versions

B) Upgrade - Create specs + upgrade all dependencies
   → Spec current state first (100% coverage)
   → Then upgrade all dependencies to latest versions
   → Fix breaking changes with spec guidance
   → Improve test coverage to spec standards
   → End with modern, fully-spec'd application
   → Perfect for modernizing legacy apps

**Upgrade mode includes:**
- npm update / pip upgrade / go get -u (based on tech stack)
- Automated breaking change detection
- Test-driven upgrade fixes
- Spec updates for API changes
- Coverage improvement to 85%+

Question 4: Choose Your Transmission

How do you want to shift through the gears?

A) Manual - Review each gear before proceeding
   → You're in control
   → Stop at each step
   → Good for first-time users

B) Cruise Control - Shift through all gears automatically
   → Hands-free
   → Unattended execution
   → Good for experienced users or overnight runs

Question 5: Specification Thoroughness

How thorough should specification generation be in Gear 3?

A) Specs only (30 min - fast)
   → Generate specs for all features
   → Create plans manually with /speckit.plan as needed
   → Good for: quick assessment, flexibility

B) Specs + Plans (45-60 min - recommended)
   → Generate specs for all features
   → Auto-generate implementation plans for incomplete features
   → Ready for /speckit.tasks when you implement
   → Good for: most projects, balanced automation

C) Specs + Plans + Tasks (90-120 min - complete roadmap)
   → Generate specs for all features
   → Auto-generate plans for incomplete features
   → Auto-generate comprehensive task lists (300-500 lines each)
   → Ready for immediate implementation
   → Good for: large projects, maximum automation

Question 6: Clarifications Strategy (If Cruise Control selected)

How should [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers be handled?

A) Defer - Mark them, continue implementation around them
   → Fastest
   → Can clarify later with /speckit.clarify

B) Prompt - Stop and ask questions interactively
   → Most thorough
   → Takes longer

C) Skip - Only implement fully-specified features
   → Safest
   → Some features won't be implemented

Question 7: Implementation Scope (If Cruise Control selected)

What should be implemented in Gear 6?

A) None - Stop after specs are ready
   → Just want specifications
   → Will implement manually later

B) P0 only - Critical features only
   → Essential features
   → Fastest implementation

C) P0 + P1 - Critical + high-value features
   → Good balance
   → Most common choice

D) All - Every feature (may take hours/days)
   → Complete implementation
   → Longest runtime

Question 8: Spec Output Location (If Greenfield selected)

Where should specifications and documentation be written?

A) Current repository (default)
   → Specs in: ./docs/reverse-engineering/, ./.specify/
   → Simple, everything in one place
   → Good for: small teams, single repo

B) New application repository
   → Specs in: ~/git/my-new-app/.specify/
   → Specs live with NEW codebase
   → Good for: clean separation, NEW repo already exists

C) Separate documentation repository
   → Specs in: ~/git/my-app-docs/.specify/
   → Central docs repo for multiple apps
   → Good for: enterprise, multiple related apps

D) Custom location
   → Your choice: [specify path]

Default: Current repository (A)

Question 9: Target Stack (If Greenfield + Implementation selected)

What tech stack for the new implementation?

Examples:
- Next.js 15 + TypeScript + Prisma + PostgreSQL
- Python/FastAPI + SQLAlchemy + PostgreSQL
- Go + Gin + GORM + PostgreSQL
- Your choice: [specify your preferred stack]

Question 10: Build Location (If Greenfield + Implementation selected)

Where should the new application be built?

A) Subfolder (recommended for Web)
   → Examples: greenfield/, v2/, new-app/
   → Keeps old and new in same repo
   → Works in Claude Code Web

B) Separate directory (local only)
   → Examples: ~/git/my-new-app, ../my-app-v2
   → Completely separate location
   → Requires local Claude Code (doesn't work in Web)

C) Replace in place (destructive)
   → Removes old code as new is built
   → Not recommended

Then ask for the specific path:

If subfolder (A):

Folder name within this repo? (default: greenfield/)

Examples: v2/, new-app/, nextjs-version/, rebuilt/
Your choice: [or press enter for greenfield/]

If separate directory (B):

Full path to new application directory:

Examples:
- ~/git/my-new-app
- ../my-app-v2
- /Users/you/projects/new-version

Your choice: [absolute or relative path]

⚠️  Note: Directory will be created if it doesn't exist.
Claude Code Web users: This won't work in Web - use subfolder instead.

All answers are stored in .stackshift-state.json and guide the entire workflow.

State file example:

{
  "detection_type": "monorepo-service",  // What kind of app: monorepo-service, nx-app, generic, etc.
  "route": "greenfield",                  // How to spec it: greenfield or brownfield
  "implementation_framework": "speckit",  // speckit or bmad
  "config": {
    "spec_output_location": "~/git/my-new-app",  // Where to write specs/docs
    "build_location": "~/git/my-new-app",         // Where to build new code (Gear 6)
    "target_stack": "Next.js 15 + React 19 + Prisma",
    "clarifications_strategy": "defer",
    "implementation_scope": "p0_p1"
  }
}

Key fields:

detection_type - What we're analyzing (monorepo-service, nx-app, turborepo-package, generic)
route - How to spec it (greenfield = tech-agnostic, brownfield = tech-prescriptive)
implementation_framework - Which tool for implementation (speckit = GitHub Spec Kit, bmad = BMAD Method)

Examples:

Monorepo Service + Greenfield = Extract business logic for platform migration
Monorepo Service + Brownfield = Extract full implementation for maintenance
Nx App + Greenfield = Extract business logic (framework-agnostic)
Nx App + Brownfield = Extract full Nx/Angular implementation details

How it works:

Spec Output Location:

Gear 2 writes to: {spec_output_location}/docs/reverse-engineering/
Gear 3 writes to: {spec_output_location}/.specify/memory/
If not set: defaults to current directory

Build Location:

Gear 6 writes code to: {build_location}/src/, {build_location}/package.json, etc.
Can be same as spec location OR different
If not set: defaults to greenfield/ subfolder

Implementing the Questionnaire

Use the AskUserQuestion tool to collect all configuration upfront:

// Example implementation
AskUserQuestion({
  questions: [
    {
      question: "Which route best aligns with your goals?",
      header: "Route",
      multiSelect: false,
      options: [
        {
          label: "Greenfield",
          description: "Shift to new tech stack - extract business logic only (tech-agnostic)"
        },
        {
          label: "Brownfield",
          description: "Manage existing code with specs - extract full implementation (tech-prescriptive)"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      question: "Which implementation framework do you want to use?",
      header: "Framework",
      multiSelect: false,
      options: [
        {
          label: "GitHub Spec Kit (Recommended)",
          description: "Feature specs in .specify/, task-driven, simpler workflow"
        },
        {
          label: "BMAD Method",
          description: "PRD + Architecture in docs/, agent-driven, enterprise-scale"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      question: "How do you want to shift through the gears?",
      header: "Transmission",
      multiSelect: false,
      options: [
        {
          label: "Manual",
          description: "Review each gear before proceeding - you're in control"
        },
        {
          label: "Cruise Control",
          description: "Shift through all gears automatically - hands-free, unattended execution"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
});

// Then based on answers, ask follow-up questions conditionally:
// - If cruise control: Ask clarifications strategy, implementation scope
// - If greenfield + implementing: Ask target stack
// - If greenfield subfolder: Ask folder name (or accept default: greenfield/)
// - If BMAD selected: Skip spec thoroughness question (BMAD handles its own planning)
// - If BMAD + cruise control: Gear 6 hands off to BMAD instead of /speckit.implement

For custom folder name: Use free-text input or accept default.

Example:

StackShift: "What folder name for the new application? (default: greenfield/)"

User: "v2/"  (or just press enter for greenfield/)

StackShift: "✅ New app will be built in: v2/"

Stored in state as:

{
  "config": {
    "greenfield_location": "v2/"  // Relative (subfolder)
    // OR
    "greenfield_location": "~/git/my-new-app"  // Absolute (separate)
  }
}

How it works:

Subfolder (relative path):

# Building in: /Users/you/git/my-app/greenfield/
cd /Users/you/git/my-app
# StackShift creates: ./greenfield/
# Everything in one repo

Separate directory (absolute path):

# Current repo: /Users/you/git/my-app
# New app: /Users/you/git/my-new-app

# StackShift:
# - Reads specs from: /Users/you/git/my-app/.specify/
# - Builds new app in: /Users/you/git/my-new-app/
# - Two completely separate repos

Step 0: Install Slash Commands (FIRST!)

Before any analysis, ensure /speckit. commands are available:*

# Create project commands directory
mkdir -p .claude/commands

# Copy StackShift's slash commands to project
cp ~/.claude/plugins/stackshift/.claude/commands/speckit.*.md .claude/commands/
cp ~/.claude/plugins/stackshift/.claude/commands/stackshift.modernize.md .claude/commands/

# Verify installation
ls .claude/commands/speckit.*.md

You should see:

✅ speckit.analyze.md
✅ speckit.clarify.md
✅ speckit.implement.md
✅ speckit.plan.md
✅ speckit.specify.md
✅ speckit.tasks.md
✅ stackshift.modernize.md

Why this is needed:

Claude Code looks for slash commands in project .claude/commands/ directory
Plugin-level commands are not automatically discovered
This copies them to the current project so they're available
Only needs to be done once per project

After copying:

/speckit.* commands will be available for this project
No need to restart Claude Code
Commands work immediately

Critical: Commit Commands to Git

Add to .gitignore (or create if missing):

# Allow .claude directory structure
!.claude/
!.claude/commands/

# Track slash commands (team needs these!)
!.claude/commands/*.md

# Ignore user-specific settings
.claude/settings.json
.claude/mcp-settings.json

Then commit:

git add .claude/commands/
git commit -m "chore: add StackShift and Spec Kit slash commands

Adds /speckit.* and /stackshift.* slash commands for team use.

Commands added:
- /speckit.specify - Create feature specifications
- /speckit.plan - Create technical plans
- /speckit.tasks - Generate task lists
- /speckit.implement - Execute implementation
- /speckit.clarify - Resolve ambiguities
- /speckit.analyze - Validate specs match code
- /stackshift.modernize - Upgrade dependencies

These commands enable spec-driven development workflow.
All team members will have access after cloning.
"

Why this is critical:

✅ Teammates get commands when they clone
✅ Commands are versioned with project
✅ No setup needed for new team members
✅ Commands always available

Without committing:

❌ Each developer needs to run StackShift or manually copy
❌ Confusion: "Why don't slash commands work?"
❌ Inconsistent developer experience

Process Overview

The analysis follows 5 steps:

Step 1: Auto-Detect Application Context

Run detection commands for all major languages/frameworks
Identify the primary technology stack
Extract version information

See operations/detect-stack.md for detailed instructions.

Step 2: Extract Core Metadata

Application name from manifest or directory
Version number from package manifests
Description from README or manifest
Git repository URL if available
Technology stack summary

Step 3: Analyze Directory Structure

Identify architecture patterns (MVC, microservices, monolith, etc.)
Find configuration files
Count source files by type
Map key components (backend, frontend, database, API, infrastructure)

See operations/directory-analysis.md for detailed instructions.

Step 4: Check for Existing Documentation

Scan for docs folders and markdown files
Assess documentation quality
Identify what's documented vs. what's missing

See operations/documentation-scan.md for detailed instructions.

Step 5: Assess Completeness

Look for placeholder files (TODO, WIP, etc.)
Check README for mentions of incomplete features
Count test files and estimate test coverage
Verify deployment/CI setup

See operations/completeness-assessment.md for detailed instructions.

Output Format

This skill generates analysis-report.md in the project root with:

Application Metadata - Name, version, description, repository
Technology Stack - Languages, frameworks, libraries, build system
Architecture Overview - Directory structure, key components
Existing Documentation - What docs exist and their quality
Completeness Assessment - Estimated % completion with evidence
Source Code Statistics - File counts, lines of code estimates
Recommended Next Steps - Focus areas for reverse engineering
Notes - Additional observations

See operations/generate-report.md for the complete template.

Success Criteria

After running this skill, you should have:

✅ analysis-report.md file created in project root
✅ Technology stack clearly identified
✅ Directory structure and architecture understood
✅ Completeness estimated (% done for backend, frontend, tests, docs)
✅ Ready to proceed to Step 2 (Reverse Engineer)

Next Step

Once analysis-report.md is created and reviewed, proceed to:

Step 2: Reverse Engineer - Use the reverse-engineer skill to generate comprehensive documentation.

Principles

For guidance on performing effective initial analysis:

principles/multi-language-detection.md - Detecting polyglot codebases
principles/architecture-pattern-recognition.md - Identifying common patterns

Common Workflows

New Project Analysis:

User asks to analyze codebase
Run all detection commands in parallel
Generate analysis report
Present summary and ask if ready for Step 2

Re-analysis:

Check if analysis-report.md already exists
Ask user if they want to update it or skip to Step 2
If updating, re-run analysis and show diff

Partial Analysis:

User already knows tech stack
Skip detection, focus on completeness assessment
Generate abbreviated report

Technical Notes

Parallel execution: Run all language detection commands in parallel for speed
Error handling: Missing manifest files are normal (return empty), don't error
File limits: Use head to limit output for large codebases
Exclusions: Always exclude node_modules, vendor, .git, build, dist, target
Platform compatibility: Commands work on macOS, Linux, WSL

Example Invocation

When a user says:

"I need to reverse engineer this application and create specifications. Let's start."

This skill auto-activates and:

Detects tech stack (e.g., Next.js, TypeScript, Prisma, AWS)
Analyzes directory structure (identifies app/, lib/, prisma/, infrastructure/)
Scans documentation (finds README.md, basic setup docs)
Assesses completeness (estimates backend 100%, frontend 60%, tests 30%)
Generates analysis-report.md
Presents summary and recommends proceeding to Step 2

Remember: This is Step 1 of 6. After analysis, you'll proceed to reverse-engineer, create-specs, gap-analysis, complete-spec, and implement. Each step builds on the previous one.

analyze

$ Installer