Code Investigator

Systematic codebase investigation using parallel subagents. Discover all features, analyze risks, and produce a prioritized action report.

Workflow

Phase 1: Feature Discovery

Use the Task tool with subagent_type=Explore to map the entire project:

1. •Identify project type (framework, language, architecture pattern)
2. •List all features/modules with file locations
3. •Map dependencies (package.json, requirements.txt, go.mod, etc.)
4. •Identify entry points, routes, API endpoints
5. •Note configuration files, environment setup, CI/CD

Output a structured feature inventory:

## Feature Inventory
| # | Feature/Module | Files | Description |
|---|---------------|-------|-------------|
| 1 | Authentication | src/auth/* | OAuth + session |
| 2 | Product CRUD  | src/products/* | Admin API |
...

Present this inventory to the user before proceeding to Phase 2.

Phase 2: Parallel Investigation

Launch multiple Task subagents in a single message to investigate concurrently. Each subagent focuses on one investigation area. See references/investigation-areas.md for detailed checklists per area.

Required subagents (launch all in parallel):

Optional subagents (based on project type):

Each subagent prompt must include:

• •The feature inventory from Phase 1
• •Specific checklist items from references/investigation-areas.md
• •Instruction to rate each finding: CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
• •Instruction to provide file path and line number for each finding

Phase 3: Report Synthesis

Collect all subagent results and compile into a single prioritized report.

Report Structure

# Code Investigation Report
**Project:** [name] | **Date:** [date] | **Files Analyzed:** [count]

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: overall health, top concerns, immediate actions needed]

## Critical Findings (Act Immediately)
| # | Finding | Category | File:Line | Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---------|----------|-----------|--------|----------------|

## High Priority
| # | Finding | Category | File:Line | Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---------|----------|-----------|--------|----------------|

## Medium Priority
| # | Finding | Category | File:Line | Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---------|----------|-----------|--------|----------------|

## Low Priority / Improvements
| # | Finding | Category | File:Line | Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---------|----------|-----------|--------|----------------|

## Dead Code & Redundancies
| # | Item | Type | File:Line | Safe to Remove? |
|---|------|------|-----------|-----------------|

## Missing Functionality
| # | Gap | Why It Matters | Suggested Implementation |
|---|-----|----------------|--------------------------|

## Dependency Health
| Package | Current | Latest | Risk | Action |
|---------|---------|--------|------|--------|

## Metrics Summary
- Total findings: X (Critical: X, High: X, Medium: X, Low: X)
- Dead code items: X
- Missing features: X
- Vulnerable dependencies: X

Sorting Rules

1. •CRITICAL: Security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, crashes in production
2. •HIGH: Bugs likely to affect users, missing auth checks, unhandled errors in critical paths
3. •MEDIUM: Code smells, minor security issues, performance concerns, missing tests
4. •LOW: Style issues, minor refactoring opportunities, nice-to-have improvements

Key Guidelines

• •Never guess - always verify by reading actual code before reporting a finding
• •Include file path and line number for every finding
• •Distinguish between confirmed issues and potential concerns
• •Do not report style preferences as issues unless they cause real problems
• •Group related findings to avoid duplicate reports
• •If a subagent finds nothing in its area, report that as a positive signal