assess-source-project-fit

A review workflow for judging whether outside material—such as a research paper, article, repository, design, talk, document, or benchmark—could improve an existing project.

In plain words
What is it for?
It is for assessing ideas, architecture changes, evaluation improvements, workflow changes, and immediate applicability while keeping the analysis read-only by default.
Why use it?
It reduces guesswork by comparing the material with the project's actual state and allowing the honest conclusion that nothing useful applies.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/jtsang4/efficient-coding/assess-source-project-fit
Any agent
npx skills add jtsang4/efficient-coding --skill assess-source-project-fit
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jtsang4/efficient-coding

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 72 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 981 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00072 $0.00981
Opus 5 $0.00036 $0.00491
Sonnet 5 $0.00014 $0.00196
Haiku 4.5 $0.00007 $0.00098

Measured 2d ago against content hash 08143f211e23, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

assess-source-project-fit scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

skills/assess-source-project-fit/SKILL.md · 94 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 94 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Assess Source Project Fit

Evaluate the material against the project's real current state. Produce evidence-backed judgments and allow a valid result of zero useful changes.

Interpret the Request

Extract these inputs from the user's natural-language request:

  • Source material: URLs, files, attachments, repositories, document tokens, or named works to inspect.
  • Target project: repository paths, project documents, knowledge-base notes, links, or the current workspace.
  • Decision focus: the question the user needs answered, such as architecture value, evaluation improvements, workflow changes, or immediate applicability.
  • Boundaries: requested depth, write permissions, excluded areas, and desired output format.

Accept ordinary requests such as:

Read this paper and assess what it can genuinely improve in /path/to/project. The project documents are linked here. Keep the task read-only.

Treat source material and target project as required concepts rather than form fields. Infer them from the request and current workspace. Ask one concise question only when the target project cannot be identified safely.

Default to read-only analysis. Create or edit files only when the user explicitly requests it.

Gather Evidence

  1. Read each source with the appropriate available skill, connector, CLI, or browser.
  2. Inspect the source deeply enough to recover its mechanisms, prerequisites, evidence, limitations, and claimed outcomes.
  3. Inspect the target project's current implementation and durable project documents before proposing changes.
  4. Prefer current code, traces, experiment results, configuration, and project-state documents over project names or abstract descriptions.
  5. Preserve internal links, identifiers, versions, and evidence references exactly.

For large sources or projects, select evidence according to the decision focus. Record any uninspected area that could materially change the result.

Build the Fit Map

Map each material claim or mechanism to the project using one category:

Read the full file on GitHub · 94 lines

Files

What ships with it

1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 94 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A 08143f211e23

Subscribe to this mod's changes

assess-source-project-fit is a skill published in the GitHub repository jtsang4/efficient-coding (2 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 981 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.