Code Analyzer

Name: code-analyzer
Rating: 87
Author: sxg

Analyzes the cloned GitHub repository to understand the computational methodology, then generates structured notes and drafts the Methods section.

Critical Principle: No Silent Assumptions

NEVER assume what the code does without user confirmation.

Code can be complex and context-dependent. When uncertain about methodology:

When to Pause and Ask

•
Unclear analysis purpose
- •What is this script/notebook trying to accomplish?
- •Is this the main analysis or a side experiment?
•
Ambiguous parameters
- •Hardcoded values without explanation (what does threshold = 0.7 mean?)
- •Configuration options that affect results
•
Multiple analysis paths
- •Which branch/version of the code was used for final results?
- •Are there deprecated scripts that shouldn't be documented?
•
Statistical method uncertainty
- •Is this the correct interpretation of the test being performed?
- •What assumptions were made (normality, independence, etc.)?
•
Missing context
- •What does variable X represent in domain terms?
- •Why was this specific approach chosen over alternatives?

How to Ask

code

I have questions about the code before writing the Methods section:

**File**: analysis.ipynb, Cell 15

**Question**: I see `model = RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100, max_depth=5)`.
- Were these hyperparameters tuned, or are they defaults?
- If tuned, what was the tuning method (grid search, random search)?
- Should I report these specific values in the Methods?

**Why this matters**: Reviewers often ask about hyperparameter selection.

Document All Clarifications

Log clarifications in notes/code-analysis.md:

markdown

## Clarifications Received

| File | Question | User Response |
|------|----------|---------------|
| analysis.ipynb | Hyperparameter tuning? | Grid search with 5-fold CV |
| preprocess.py | Why z-score normalization? | Standard for this imaging modality |

Prerequisites

•scope.md must exist
•notes/ethics-summary.md may exist (provides approved procedures and endpoints for cross-reference)
•notes/ethics-scope-comparison.md may exist (clarifies what was actually implemented vs. approved)
•code/ directory with cloned repository (from context-ingestion)
•If code/ doesn't exist, this step produces limited output based on scope.md alone

Workflow

code

[Read scope.md and notes/ethics-summary.md for context]
     │
     ▼
[Scan Repository Structure]
     │
     ▼
[Identify Key Files] ─── Notebooks, scripts, configs
     │
     ▼
[CHECKPOINT: Clarify Code Purpose] ─── Ask about unclear scripts/params
     │
     ▼
[Analyze Code Flow] ─── Data loading → Processing → Analysis → Output
     │
     ▼
[CHECKPOINT: Verify Methodology] ─── Confirm interpretation with user
     │
     ▼
[ETHICS CROSS-REFERENCE] ─── Compare code procedures vs. approved procedures
     │
     ▼
[Extract Methodology] ─── Generate notes/code-analysis.md
     │
     ▼
[STATISTICAL REVIEW] ─── Validate statistical methods
     │                     └── agents/statistical-reviewer.md
     ▼
[Draft Methods] ─── drafts/methods.md (with statistical sign-off)

Step 1: Scan Repository Structure

bash

# Get repository overview
find code/ -type f -name "*.py" -o -name "*.ipynb" -o -name "*.R" | head -30

# Check for dependency files
ls code/requirements.txt code/environment.yml code/setup.py 2>/dev/null

# Check for README
cat code/README.md 2>/dev/null | head -50

Identify:

•Primary language (Python, R, MATLAB, etc.)
•Project structure (flat, src/, notebooks/, etc.)
•Entry points (main scripts, notebooks)
•Configuration files

Step 2: Identify Key Files

Prioritize analysis of:

Jupyter Notebooks (.ipynb)

Most important - usually contain the full analysis workflow.

bash

ls code/*.ipynb code/**/*.ipynb 2>/dev/null

Main Analysis Scripts

bash

ls code/main.py code/analysis.py code/run*.py 2>/dev/null

Data Processing

bash

ls code/*preprocess* code/*clean* code/*load* 2>/dev/null

Model/Statistical Files

bash

ls code/*model* code/*train* code/*stat* 2>/dev/null

Step 3: Analyze Code Flow

For each key file, trace the methodology:

3a. Data Loading

Look for patterns:

python

# Python patterns
pd.read_csv(...)
pd.read_excel(...)
nibabel.load(...)      # Neuroimaging
pydicom.dcmread(...)   # DICOM
SimpleITK.ReadImage(...)

Extract:

•Data sources (file types, databases)
•Data formats
•Initial data shape/size

3b. Preprocessing

Look for patterns:

python

# Cleaning
df.dropna(...)
df.fillna(...)

# Transformation
StandardScaler()
normalize(...)
resample(...)

# Feature engineering
df['new_col'] = ...

Extract:

•Missing data handling
•Normalization/standardization
•Feature creation
•Exclusion criteria applied in code

3c. Statistical Analysis

Look for patterns:

python

# Hypothesis tests
scipy.stats.ttest_ind(...)
scipy.stats.mannwhitneyu(...)
scipy.stats.pearsonr(...)
scipy.stats.spearmanr(...)

# Regression
statsmodels.api.OLS(...)
statsmodels.api.Logit(...)

# Multiple comparison correction
statsmodels.stats.multitest.multipletests(...)

Extract:

•Statistical tests used
•Significance thresholds
•Multiple comparison corrections

3d. Machine Learning (if applicable)

Look for patterns:

python

# Splitting
train_test_split(..., test_size=0.2, random_state=42)
cross_val_score(...)
StratifiedKFold(...)

# Models
RandomForestClassifier(...)
LogisticRegression(...)
XGBClassifier(...)

# Evaluation
accuracy_score(...)
roc_auc_score(...)
confusion_matrix(...)

Extract:

•Model type and parameters
•Train/test split ratios
•Cross-validation strategy
•Performance metrics

3e. Dependencies and Versions

bash

cat code/requirements.txt 2>/dev/null

Or extract from imports:

python

import pandas as pd
print(pd.__version__)

Step 4: Generate Code Analysis Notes

Create notes/code-analysis.md:

markdown

# Code Analysis

**Repository**: [GitHub URL]
**Analyzed**: [timestamp]
**Primary Language**: Python [version]

## Repository Structure

code/ ├── analysis.ipynb # Main analysis ├── preprocessing.py # Data cleaning ├── models.py # ML models └── requirements.txt # Dependencies

code


## Data Pipeline

### 1. Data Loading
- **Source**: CSV files from [source]
- **Format**: Tabular data with [n] columns
- **Initial Size**: [n] rows

### 2. Preprocessing
- Missing data: [handling approach]
- Normalization: [method]
- Exclusions: [criteria]

### 3. Analysis Approach

#### Statistical Tests
| Test | Purpose | Parameters |
|------|---------|------------|
| Independent t-test | Group comparison | α = 0.05 |
| Pearson correlation | Association | |
| Mann-Whitney U | Non-parametric comparison | |

#### Machine Learning (if applicable)
- **Model**: [type]
- **Split**: [ratio] train/test
- **Cross-validation**: [k]-fold
- **Hyperparameters**: [key params]
- **Metrics**: [accuracy, AUC, etc.]

### 4. Output Generation
- Figures saved to: [location]
- Results saved to: [location]

## Dependencies

| Package | Version | Purpose |
|---------|---------|---------|
| pandas | 2.0.3 | Data manipulation |
| scikit-learn | 1.3.0 | ML models |
| scipy | 1.11.1 | Statistical tests |
| matplotlib | 3.7.2 | Visualization |

## Key Code Snippets

### Statistical Test Implementation
```python
[relevant code snippet]

Model Training

python

[relevant code snippet]

Notes for Methods Section

•[Key methodological detail 1]
•[Key methodological detail 2]
•[Any unusual or noteworthy approaches]

code


## Step 4b: Ethics Cross-Reference (If Ethics Docs Exist)

**Skip this step if `notes/ethics-summary.md` does not exist.**

Compare the procedures identified in code with the approved procedures to ensure consistency and identify any discrepancies.

### Cross-Reference Table

Create a comparison in `notes/code-analysis.md`:

```markdown
## Ethics Procedure Cross-Reference

| Approved Procedure | Implemented in Code? | Code Location | Notes |
|--------------------|---------------------|---------------|-------|
| [procedure from ethics] | ✓/✗ | analysis.ipynb | [matches/differs] |
| [procedure from ethics] | ✓/✗ | [file] | [notes] |

| Code Procedure | In Ethics Doc? | Notes |
|----------------|----------------|-------|
| [procedure from code] | ✓/✗ | [expected/unexpected] |

What to Check

•Endpoints match: Are the outcomes analyzed in code the same as approved endpoints?
•Population criteria: Does data filtering match approved inclusion/exclusion?
•Statistical methods: Are the planned analyses from ethics doc reflected in code?
•Sample size: Does actual N align with approved sample size?

If Discrepancies Found

Reference notes/ethics-scope-comparison.md to understand if differences were already documented during scoping. If not:

•Document the discrepancy in code-analysis.md
•Ask user for clarification before proceeding
•Note implications for Methods section wording

code

I found a discrepancy between the ethics document and implemented code:

**Ethics Doc**: Primary endpoint is outcome measurement at 6 months
**Code**: Analyzes measurements at 3 months and 6 months

Was this intentional? Should the Methods describe both timepoints,
or is one the primary and one exploratory?

Step 5: Statistical Review

Before drafting Methods, invoke the statistical reviewer agent for statistical review.

Read agents/statistical-reviewer.md and execute Phase 1 (Code Analysis Review):

•Create statistical methods inventory from code analysis
•Check assumptions for each test identified
•Verify test appropriateness for data types
•Assess multiple comparisons handling
•Evaluate sample size adequacy

Statistical Reviewer Checkpoint

The statistical reviewer must confirm:

markdown

## Statistical Methods Review

| Method | Appropriate? | Assumptions Checked? | Recommendation |
|--------|--------------|---------------------|----------------|
| [test 1] | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [approve/revise] |
| [test 2] | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [approve/revise] |

**Statistical Sign-Off**: [ ] Approved for Methods drafting

Do NOT proceed to Methods draft until statistical reviewer approves.

If issues identified:

•Document concerns in notes/code-analysis.md
•Flag for user attention
•Suggest alternative methods if appropriate

Step 6: Draft Methods Section

Only proceed after statistical reviewer sign-off from Step 5.

Create drafts/methods.md:

markdown

# Methods

## Study Design and Population

[From scope.md - describe study design]

[From code analysis - describe data source and selection]

## Data Acquisition

[If applicable - describe how raw data was obtained]

## Data Preprocessing

[From code analysis - describe cleaning, normalization, feature engineering]

Data preprocessing was performed using Python [version]. [Describe steps in scientific prose.]

## Statistical Analysis

[From code analysis - describe all statistical approaches]

[Test] was used to [purpose]. Statistical significance was set at p < [threshold]. [Multiple comparison correction] was applied for [reason].

## Machine Learning Analysis (if applicable)

[From code analysis - describe ML pipeline]

A [model type] was trained using [split] of the data. [Cross-validation strategy] was employed to assess model generalization. Model performance was evaluated using [metrics].

## Software

Statistical analysis was performed using Python [version] with [packages]. [Additional software if relevant.]

---

## Methods Checklist

- [ ] Study design clearly stated
- [ ] Population/sample described
- [ ] All preprocessing steps documented
- [ ] Statistical tests specified with parameters
- [ ] Significance threshold stated
- [ ] Software and versions listed
- [ ] Reproducibility considerations addressed

Output

Save to:

•notes/code-analysis.md - Detailed analysis (includes statistical review)
•drafts/methods.md - Methods section draft (with statistical reviewer approval)

Return to parent skill with summary:

•Files analyzed: [n]
•Statistical tests identified: [list]
•ML approach: [yes/no, type]
•Statistical reviewer status: [approved / revisions needed]
•Statistical issues: [list if any]
•Methods word count: [n]