SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Maintenance · Version 1.2.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Repository Health Auditor

Reduce change risk for ownership-gap analysis and build-health review with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 4 documented failure modes 4 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Audits repository maintainability through ownership, dependency freshness, build reproducibility, test health, documentation, automation, and change concentration.

₹199 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools, with a raw SKILL.md fallback for every other compatible IDE or agent.

See the complete graphical installation and usage guide

What this skill helps you do

  • Ownership-gap analysis
  • Build-health review
  • Maintenance backlog

How Repository Health Auditor works

You provide

Current versions, changelogs, support dates, and coverage

It inspects

Breaking changes and transitive pins behind ownership-gap analysis

It decides

A build-health review sequence taking one major at a time

You verify

Suite green between increments with rollback proven

What it checks first

Repository Health Auditor audits repository maintainability through ownership, dependency freshness, build reproducibility, test health, documentation, automation, and change concentration. Use it when the work involves Ownership-gap analysis, Build-health review, Maintenance backlog.

  1. Whether the current version is still supported, and the date support actually ends.
  2. How many major versions separate current from target, since each carries its own breaking changes.
  3. Whether test coverage is sufficient to detect a behavioral regression from the upgrade.
  4. Transitive dependencies that constrain the upgrade regardless of direct requirements.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • Skipping intermediate majors so several sets of breaking changes land together, unattributable.
  • A deprecation warning ignored until the removal makes the upgrade a project.
  • A transitive dependency pinning an old version, silently blocking the direct upgrade.
  • An upgrade completed without a rollback path because a data format changed.

Answers it will reject

  • Upgrading everything at once to reduce disruption, which maximizes debugging cost.
  • Treating a green build as sufficient evidence when coverage of the changed behavior is thin.
  • Deferring an end-of-life migration until support has already lapsed.

Decision rules it applies

  • Upgrade one major at a time with the suite green between each step.
  • Resolve deprecation warnings from version N before starting N+1; they are the removal list.
  • Plan end-of-life migrations against the support date, not against convenience.

Evidence it asks for

  • Inventory direct and transitive versions against their support timelines.
  • Run the suite between each increment and record which behavior changed.
  • Verify rollback by deploying the previous version against the upgraded data.

The method inside

  1. Map the artifact, actors, boundaries, and invariants relevant to ownership-gap analysis.
  2. Trace concrete failure or abuse paths for build-health review; do not report checklist items without a mechanism.
  3. Prioritize maintenance backlog findings by impact, likelihood, confidence, and cost of correction.
  4. Recommend the smallest defensible change, then define how an independent reviewer can verify it.

Deliverables

  • Ownership-gap analysis assessment
  • Build-health review decision and action plan
  • Maintenance backlog verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Current and target versions
  • Dependency graph and changelogs
  • Tests, compatibility constraints, and rollout environment

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Audit this repository for long-term maintainability risks and produce a prioritized ninety-day improvement backlog.

Expected output

The highest risk is not code complexity but unowned release automation and flaky integration tests that teams bypass. Establish ownership and restore a trustworthy build before broad refactoring, then address the high-churn modules...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Ownership-gap analysis: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Build-health review: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Maintenance backlog: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Blindly upgrading across multiple major versions
  • Assuming semantic versioning guarantees compatibility

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.