Auto-selects best Kaizen method (Gemba Walk, Value Stream, or Muda) for target

GPL-3.0Auto-check: notesDevelopment

Install Analyse

skills CLI
$ npx skills add NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit --skill analyse -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit analyse --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/analyse .claude/skills/analyse && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
analyse
GitHub stars
1.7k
Token cost
~3.6k tokens
SKILL.md length
612 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
57
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
GPL-3.0

At a glance

Auto-selects best Kaizen method (Gemba Walk, Value Stream, or Muda) for target

  • Works in 5 steps: Understand what's being analyzed → Determine best method (or use specified… → Explain why this method fits → …
  • Development work in your project
  • SKILL.md covers Description, Usage, Variables and Method Selection Logic, plus 5 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Analyse is an agent skill from NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit. Auto-selects best Kaizen method (Gemba Walk, Value Stream, or Muda) for target

Its SKILL.md is about 3.6k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Development. The repository describes itself as: Hand-crafted Claude Code Skills focused on improving agent results quality. Compatible with OpenCode, Cursor, Antigravity, Gemini CLI, and others. Includes CodeRabbit open-source… The licence is GPL-3.0.

When your agent uses it

  • Development work in your project

Example prompts

  • “/analyse”

Requirements

  • Docker

Workflow steps

5 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Understand what's being analyzed
  2. Determine best method (or use specified method)
  3. Explain why this method fits
  4. Guide through the analysis
  5. Present findings with actionable insights

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 23e2428. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Analyse loads about 3.6k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 22 tokens; SKILL.md has 612 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~22
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.6k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check: notes

The automated check noted patterns worth knowing about, such as sudo or a known installer.

  • NoteMentions a .env fileSKILL.md:157
    ✗ Secrets loaded from .env file (not secrets manager)
  • NoteMentions a .env fileSKILL.md:461
    • Copy-paste secrets to .env files

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit at commit 23e2428, republished under its GPL-3.0 licence (© NeoLabHQ). 612 words, ~3,629 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/analyse/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
analyse
description
Auto-selects best Kaizen method (Gemba Walk, Value Stream, or Muda) for target

Smart Analysis

Intelligently select and apply the most appropriate Kaizen analysis technique based on what you're analyzing.

Description

Analyzes context and chooses best method: Gemba Walk (code exploration), Value Stream Mapping (workflow/process), or Muda Analysis (waste identification). Guides you through the selected technique.

Usage

/analyse [target_description]

Examples:

  • /analyse authentication implementation
  • /analyse deployment workflow
  • /analyse codebase for inefficiencies

Variables

  • TARGET: What to analyze (default: prompt for input)
  • METHOD: Override auto-selection (gemba, vsm, muda)

Method Selection Logic

Gemba Walk → When analyzing:

  • Code implementation (how feature actually works)
  • Gap between documentation and reality
  • Understanding unfamiliar codebase areas
  • Actual vs. assumed architecture

Value Stream Mapping → When analyzing:

  • Workflows and processes (CI/CD, deployment, development)
  • Bottlenecks in multi-stage pipelines
  • Handoffs between teams/systems
  • Time spent in each process stage

Muda (Waste Analysis) → When analyzing:

  • Code quality and efficiency
  • Technical debt
  • Over-engineering or duplication
  • Resource utilization

Steps

  1. Understand what's being analyzed
  2. Determine best method (or use specified method)
  3. Explain why this method fits
  4. Guide through the analysis
  5. Present findings with actionable insights

Method 1: Gemba Walk

"Go and see" the actual code to understand reality vs. assumptions.

When to Use
  • Understanding how feature actually works
  • Code archaeology (legacy systems)
  • Finding gaps between docs and implementation
  • Exploring unfamiliar areas before changes
Process
  1. Define scope: What code area to explore
  2. State assumptions: What you think it does
  3. Observe reality: Read actual code
  4. Document findings:
    • Entry points
    • Actual data flow
    • Surprises (differs from assumptions)
    • Hidden dependencies
    • Undocumented behavior
  5. Identify gaps: Documentation vs. reality
  6. Recommend: Update docs, refactor, or accept
Example: Authentication System Gemba Walk
SCOPE: User authentication flow

ASSUMPTIONS (Before):
• JWT tokens stored in localStorage
• Single sign-on via OAuth only
• Session expires after 1 hour
• Password reset via email link

GEMBA OBSERVATIONS (Actual Code):

Entry Point: /api/auth/login (routes/auth.ts:45)
├─> AuthService.authenticate() (services/auth.ts:120)
├─> UserRepository.findByEmail() (db/users.ts:67)
├─> bcrypt.compare() (services/auth.ts:145)
└─> TokenService.generate() (services/token.ts:34)

Actual Flow:
1. Login credentials → POST /api/auth/login
2. Password hashed with bcrypt (10 rounds)
3. JWT generated with 24hr expiry (NOT 1 hour!)
4. Token stored in httpOnly cookie (NOT localStorage)
5. Refresh token in separate cookie (15 days)
6. Session data in Redis (30 days TTL)

SURPRISES:
✗ OAuth not implemented (commented out code found)
✗ Password reset is manual (admin intervention)
✗ Three different session storage mechanisms:
  - Redis for session data
  - Database for "remember me"
  - Cookies for tokens
✗ Legacy endpoint /auth/legacy still active (no auth!)
✗ Admin users bypass rate limiting (security issue)

GAPS:
• Documentation says OAuth, code doesn't have it
• Session expiry inconsistent (docs: 1hr, code: 24hr)
• Legacy endpoint not documented (security risk)
• No mention of "remember me" in docs

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. HIGH: Secure or remove /auth/legacy endpoint
2. HIGH: Document actual session expiry (24hr)
3. MEDIUM: Clean up or implement OAuth
4. MEDIUM: Consolidate session storage (choose one)
5. LOW: Add rate limiting for admin users
Example: CI/CD Pipeline Gemba Walk
SCOPE: Build and deployment pipeline

ASSUMPTIONS:
• Automated tests run on every commit
• Deploy to staging automatic
• Production deploy requires approval

GEMBA OBSERVATIONS:

Actual Pipeline (.github/workflows/main.yml):
1. On push to main:
   ├─> Lint (2 min)
   ├─> Unit tests (5 min) [SKIPPED if "[skip-tests]" in commit]
   ├─> Build Docker image (15 min)
   └─> Deploy to staging (3 min)

2. Manual trigger for production:
   ├─> Run integration tests (20 min) [ONLY for production!]
   ├─> Security scan (10 min)
   └─> Deploy to production (5 min)

SURPRISES:
✗ Unit tests can be skipped with commit message flag
✗ Integration tests ONLY run for production deploy
✗ Staging deployed without integration tests
✗ No rollback mechanism (manual kubectl commands)
✗ Secrets loaded from .env file (not secrets manager)
✗ Old "hotfix" branch bypasses all checks

GAPS:
• Staging and production have different test coverage
• Documentation doesn't mention test skip flag
• Rollback process not documented or automated
• Security scan results not enforced (warning only)

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. CRITICAL: Remove test skip flag capability
2. CRITICAL: Migrate secrets to secrets manager
3. HIGH: Run integration tests on staging too
4. HIGH: Delete or secure hotfix branch
5. MEDIUM: Add automated rollback capability
6. MEDIUM: Make security scan blocking

Method 2: Value Stream Mapping

Map workflow stages, measure time/waste, identify bottlenecks.

When to Use
  • Process optimization (CI/CD, deployment, code review)
  • Understanding multi-stage workflows
  • Finding delays and handoffs
  • Improving cycle time
Process
  1. Identify start and end: Where process begins and ends
  2. Map all steps: Including waiting/handoff time
  3. Measure each step:
    • Processing time (work happening)
    • Waiting time (idle, blocked)
    • Who/what performs step
  4. Calculate metrics:
    • Total lead time
    • Value-add time vs. waste time
    • % efficiency (value-add / total time)
  5. Identify bottlenecks: Longest steps, most waiting
  6. Design future state: Optimized flow
  7. Plan improvements: How to achieve future state
Show full SKILL.md (243 more words)Show less
Example: Feature Development Value Stream Map
CURRENT STATE: Feature request → Production

Step 1: Requirements Gathering
├─ Processing: 2 days (meetings, writing spec)
├─ Waiting: 3 days (stakeholder review)
└─ Owner: Product Manager

Step 2: Design
├─ Processing: 1 day (mockups, architecture)
├─ Waiting: 2 days (design review, feedback)
└─ Owner: Designer + Architect

Step 3: Development
├─ Processing: 5 days (coding)
├─ Waiting: 2 days (PR review queue)
└─ Owner: Developer

Step 4: Code Review
├─ Processing: 0.5 days (review)
├─ Waiting: 1 day (back-and-forth changes)
└─ Owner: Senior Developer

Step 5: QA Testing
├─ Processing: 2 days (manual testing)
├─ Waiting: 1 day (bug fixes, retest)
└─ Owner: QA Engineer

Step 6: Staging Deployment
├─ Processing: 0.5 days (deploy, smoke test)
├─ Waiting: 2 days (stakeholder UAT)
└─ Owner: DevOps

Step 7: Production Deployment
├─ Processing: 0.5 days (deploy, monitor)
├─ Waiting: 0 days
└─ Owner: DevOps

───────────────────────────────────────
METRICS:
Total Lead Time: 22.5 days
Value-Add Time: 11.5 days (work)
Waste Time: 11 days (waiting)
Efficiency: 51%

BOTTLENECKS:
1. Requirements review wait (3 days)
2. Development time (5 days)
3. Stakeholder UAT wait (2 days)
4. PR review queue (2 days)

WASTE ANALYSIS:
• Waiting for reviews/approvals: 9 days (82% of waste)
• Rework due to unclear requirements: ~1 day
• Manual testing time: 2 days

FUTURE STATE DESIGN:

Changes:
1. Async requirements approval (stakeholders have 24hr SLA)
2. Split large features into smaller increments
3. Automated testing replaces manual QA
4. PR review SLA: 4 hours max
5. Continuous deployment to staging (no approval)
6. Feature flags for production rollout (no wait)

Projected Future State:
Total Lead Time: 9 days (60% reduction)
Value-Add Time: 8 days
Waste Time: 1 day
Efficiency: 89%

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
Week 1: Set review SLAs, add feature flags
Week 2: Automate test suite
Week 3: Enable continuous staging deployment
Week 4: Train team on incremental delivery
Example: Incident Response Value Stream Map
CURRENT STATE: Incident detected → Resolution

Step 1: Detection
├─ Processing: 0 min (automated alert)
├─ Waiting: 15 min (until someone sees alert)
└─ System: Monitoring tool

Step 2: Triage
├─ Processing: 10 min (assess severity)
├─ Waiting: 20 min (find right person)
└─ Owner: On-call engineer

Step 3: Investigation
├─ Processing: 45 min (logs, debugging)
├─ Waiting: 30 min (access to production, gather context)
└─ Owner: Engineer + SRE

Step 4: Fix Development
├─ Processing: 60 min (write fix)
├─ Waiting: 15 min (code review)
└─ Owner: Engineer

Step 5: Deployment
├─ Processing: 10 min (hotfix deploy)
├─ Waiting: 5 min (verification)
└─ Owner: SRE

Step 6: Post-Incident
├─ Processing: 20 min (update status, notify)
├─ Waiting: 0 min
└─ Owner: Engineer

───────────────────────────────────────
METRICS:
Total Lead Time: 230 min (3h 50min)
Value-Add Time: 145 min
Waste Time: 85 min (37%)

BOTTLENECKS:
1. Finding right person (20 min)
2. Gaining production access (30 min)
3. Investigation time (45 min)

IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Slack integration for alerts (reduce detection wait)
2. Auto-assign by service owner (no hunt for person)
3. Pre-approved prod access for on-call (reduce wait)
4. Runbooks for common incidents (faster investigation)
5. Automated rollback for deployment incidents

Projected improvement: 230min → 120min (48% faster)

Method 3: Muda (Waste Analysis)

Identify seven types of waste in code and development processes.

When to Use
  • Code quality audits
  • Technical debt assessment
  • Process efficiency improvements
  • Identifying over-engineering
The 7 Types of Waste (Applied to Software)

1. Overproduction: Building more than needed

  • Features no one uses
  • Overly complex solutions
  • Premature optimization
  • Unnecessary abstractions

2. Waiting: Idle time

  • Build/test/deploy time
  • Code review delays
  • Waiting for dependencies
  • Blocked by other teams

3. Transportation: Moving things around

  • Unnecessary data transformations
  • API layers with no value add
  • Copying data between systems
  • Repeated serialization/deserialization

4. Over-processing: Doing more than necessary

  • Excessive logging
  • Redundant validations
  • Over-normalized databases
  • Unnecessary computation

5. Inventory: Work in progress

  • Unmerged branches
  • Half-finished features
  • Untriaged bugs
  • Undeployed code

6. Motion: Unnecessary movement

  • Context switching
  • Meetings without purpose
  • Manual deployments
  • Repetitive tasks

7. Defects: Rework and bugs

  • Production bugs
  • Technical debt
  • Flaky tests
  • Incomplete features
Process
  1. Define scope: Codebase area or process
  2. Examine for each waste type
  3. Quantify impact (time, complexity, cost)
  4. Prioritize by impact
  5. Propose elimination strategies
Example: API Codebase Waste Analysis
SCOPE: REST API backend (50K LOC)

1. OVERPRODUCTION
   Found:
   • 15 API endpoints with zero usage (last 90 days)
   • Generic "framework" built for "future flexibility" (unused)
   • Premature microservices split (2 services, could be 1)
   • Feature flags for 12 features (10 fully rolled out, flags kept)
   
   Impact: 8K LOC maintained for no reason
   Recommendation: Delete unused endpoints, remove stale flags

2. WAITING
   Found:
   • CI pipeline: 45 min (slow Docker builds)
   • PR review time: avg 2 days
   • Deployment to staging: manual, takes 1 hour
   
   Impact: 2.5 days wasted per feature
   Recommendation: Cache Docker layers, PR review SLA, automate staging

3. TRANSPORTATION
   Found:
   • Data transformed 4 times between DB and API response:
     DB → ORM → Service → DTO → Serializer
   • Request/response logged 3 times (middleware, handler, service)
   • Files uploaded → S3 → CloudFront → Local cache (unnecessary)
   
   Impact: 200ms avg response time overhead
   Recommendation: Reduce transformation layers, consolidate logging

4. OVER-PROCESSING
   Found:
   • Every request validates auth token (even cached)
   • Database queries fetch all columns (SELECT *)
   • JSON responses include full object graphs (nested 5 levels)
   • Logs every database query in production (verbose)
   
   Impact: 40% higher database load, 3x log storage
   Recommendation: Cache auth checks, selective fields, trim responses

5. INVENTORY
   Found:
   • 23 open PRs (8 abandoned, 6+ months old)
   • 5 feature branches unmerged (completed but not deployed)
   • 147 open bugs (42 duplicates, 60 not reproducible)
   • 12 hotfix commits not backported to main
   
   Impact: Context overhead, merge conflicts, lost work
   Recommendation: Close stale PRs, bug triage, deploy pending features

6. MOTION
   Found:
   • Developers switch between 4 tools for one deployment
   • Manual database migrations (error-prone, slow)
   • Environment config spread across 6 files
   • Copy-paste secrets to .env files
   
   Impact: 30min per deployment, frequent mistakes
   Recommendation: Unified deployment tool, automate migrations

7. DEFECTS
   Found:
   • 12 production bugs per month
   • 15% flaky test rate (wasted retry time)
   • Technical debt in auth module (refactor needed)
   • Incomplete error handling (crashes instead of graceful)
   
   Impact: Customer complaints, rework, downtime
   Recommendation: Stabilize tests, refactor auth, add error boundaries

───────────────────────────────────────
SUMMARY

Total Waste Identified:
• Code: 8K LOC doing nothing
• Time: 2.5 days per feature
• Performance: 200ms overhead per request
• Effort: 30min per deployment

Priority Fixes (by impact):
1. HIGH: Automate deployments (reduces Motion + Waiting)
2. HIGH: Fix flaky tests (reduces Defects)
3. MEDIUM: Remove unused code (reduces Overproduction)
4. MEDIUM: Optimize data transformations (reduces Transportation)
5. LOW: Triage bug backlog (reduces Inventory)

Estimated Recovery:
• 20% faster feature delivery
• 50% fewer production issues
• 30% less operational overhead

Notes

  • Method selection is contextual—choose what fits best
  • Can combine methods (Gemba Walk → Muda Analysis)
  • Start with Gemba Walk when unfamiliar with area
  • Use VSM for process optimization
  • Use Muda for efficiency and cleanup
  • All methods should lead to actionable improvements
  • Document findings for organizational learning
  • Consider using /analyse-problem (A3) for comprehensive documentation of findings

© NeoLabHQ, GPL-3.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in skills/analyse of NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 23e2428

Compare with similar skills

Analyse next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Analyse compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Analyse this skillNeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit1.7k—~3.6kAutomated safety check: NotesGPL-3.0
PR Babysitteropeninterpreter/openinterpreter69k3 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Code Design Rationale Investigatorcursor/plugins10k9 repos~2.6kAutomated safety check: PassNone
Simple Englishmoeru-ai/airi50k2 repos~4.6kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Mole CLI Release Flowtw93/Mole70k—~2.6kAutomated safety check: PassGPL-3.0
Babysit PR To Pass CIsgl-project/sglang37k2 repos~3kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0

Similar skills

  • PR Babysitter

    openinterpreter/openinterpreter

    Watches an open GitHub pull request until it merges, handling review comments, diagnosing CI failures and retrying flaky checks along the way.

    69k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Official

    Digs into why code is shaped the way it is by checking git history, pull requests and connected tools in parallel, then reporting a cited read on the tradeoffs.

    10k GitHub starsUsed in 9 repos~2.6k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Simple English

    moeru-ai/airi

    Write or rewrite technical text with the rules of ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English so it is clear, unambiguous, and free of AI slop.

    50k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~4.6k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Runbook for assessing and executing a Mole CLI release: distribution channels, pre-flight checks, capital-V tags, build artifacts and the handoff to curated release notes.

    70k GitHub stars~2.6k tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Babysit PR To Pass CI

    sgl-project/sglang

    Start and persistently pursue a goal to babysit an SGLang pull request until selected GitHub Actions workflows pass on the latest PR head.

    37k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~3k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Load Ansible project development guidelines, testing conventions, PR review processes, and code structure reference into context

    71k GitHub stars~427 tokensUpdated today
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

All 57 skills in this repo
  • Git Notes

    NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

    A skill your agent uses when adding metadata to commits without changing history, tracking review status, test results, code quality annotations, or supplementing commit messages post-hoc - provides…

    1.7k GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Load PR Comments

    NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

    A skill your agent uses to load open/unresolved PR review comments then aggregate them as tasks in .specs/comments/.md for parallel agents to fix.

    1.7k GitHub stars~2.1k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Prompt Engineering

    NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

    A skill your agent uses when you writing commands, hooks, skills for Agent, or prompts for sub agents or any other LLM interaction, including optimizing prompts, improving LLM outputs, or designing…

    1.7k GitHub stars~4.2k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Multi Agent Patterns

    NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

    Design multi-agent architectures for complex tasks. An agent skill from NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit.

    1.7k GitHub starsUsed in 6 repos~6k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Review PR

    NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

    Review an existing GitHub pull request and post inline review comments on its diff.

    1.7k GitHub stars~3.8k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Subagent Driven Development

    NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit

    A skill your agent uses when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session or facing 3+ independent issues that can be investigated without shared state or…

    1.7k GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated 1 mo ago
    Auto-check passed

Questions about Analyse

What does Analyse do?

Auto-selects best Kaizen method (Gemba Walk, Value Stream, or Muda) for target. Analyse is an agent skill from NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit.

When should I use Analyse?

Analyse fits situations like: development work in your project.

How do I install Analyse in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit --skill analyse -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/analyse in NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit) into .claude/skills/analyse in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Analyse in Codex?

Run `npx skills add NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit --skill analyse -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/analyse in NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit) into .agents/skills/analyse in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Analyse in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit --skill analyse -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/analyse, .gemini/skills/analyse, .github/skills/analyse and .opencode/skills/analyse in your project.

What does Analyse need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Analyse is instructions for the agent only. Our summary lists: Docker.

Does Analyse access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Analyse safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found notes only (mentions a .env file), nothing it rates as a warning. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Analyse use?

Analyse is published under the GPL-3.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Analyse use?

About 3.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 15k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Analyse?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Analyse: PR Babysitter (openinterpreter/openinterpreter, 69k stars), Code Design Rationale Investigator (cursor/plugins, 10k stars), Simple English (moeru-ai/airi, 50k stars) and Mole CLI Release Flow (tw93/Mole, 70k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Analyse?

NeoLabHQ (a GitHub organization) maintains it in NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit, which has 1,749 GitHub stars. The repository holds 57 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on August 26, 2026.

Source: NeoLabHQ/context-engineering-kit on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.