explaingit

aaravkashyap12/advise-project-approach

23PythonAudience · developerComplexity · 2/5Setup · easy

TLDR

An add-on skill for AI coding agents like Claude Code and Codex that researches real open-source projects and delivers evidence-based technology stack recommendations before, during, and after you build.

Mindmap

mindmap
  root((repo))
    What it does
      Stack recommendations
      Evidence-based research
    Three stages
      Pre-build planning
      Mid-build audit
      Post-build review
    How it works
      Finds comparable projects
      Compares tradeoffs
      Refuses invented data
    Installation
      Node.js command
      Manual file upload
      Local skills folder
Click or tap to explore — scroll the page freely

Code map

Detail Auto

An interactive map of this repo's files and how they connect — its source is parsed live in your browser. Click Visualize to build it.

filefunction / class

Things people build with this

USE CASE 1

Ask your AI coding agent to compare technology stacks by studying real comparable open-source projects before you start.

USE CASE 2

Mid-build, have the skill scan your codebase and rank what needs fixing by impact rather than trend.

USE CASE 3

After shipping, review your project against mature open-source examples to find gaps before releasing.

Tech stack

PythonNode.js

Getting it running

Difficulty · easy Time to first run · 5min

Requires Node.js, the skill definition is fetched from GitHub on install via a single command.

In plain English

This is an add-on skill for AI coding agents like Claude Code and OpenAI Codex. Once installed, you can ask your agent to research the best way to build a project before you start writing code. Instead of getting a generic answer, the agent follows a structured process: gather your constraints, find real comparable open-source projects, study what those projects do and why, compare the tradeoffs, then give you a recommendation along with the conditions under which that recommendation would become the wrong one. The skill works at three stages. Before you start, it helps you pick the right technology stack by studying similar finished projects. Midway through a project, it can inspect your own code repository and identify what actually needs fixing, ordered by impact rather than trend. After you finish, it can review your project against mature examples and call out gaps to address before shipping. The README emphasizes that claims need to be grounded in real evidence. The skill is designed to refuse to invent star counts or commit dates, and to say clearly when it only had a description to work with rather than actual files to inspect. If you give it a large codebase, it maps the structure first and samples by relevance rather than reading everything. Installation requires Node.js and runs a single command to fetch the skill from GitHub. You can also download the packaged file manually and upload it through your agent's skill settings, or copy it into a local skills folder if your agent supports that. The repository includes example outputs showing pre-build, mid-build, and post-build scenarios, as well as comparisons between answers generated with and without the skill active. The project is in Python and released under an open license. Version 0.2 added a clearer decision methodology and stricter rules about what counts as acceptable evidence in a recommendation.

Copy-paste prompts

Prompt 1
Use the advise-project-approach skill to research the best stack for a real-time collaborative text editor, find 3 comparable open-source projects and compare their tradeoffs.
Prompt 2
I'm mid-build on a FastAPI and React project. Use advise-project-approach to inspect my repo and rank what needs fixing by impact before I ship.
Prompt 3
Use advise-project-approach to review my finished CLI tool against mature open-source CLIs and list the gaps I should fix before a public release.
Open on GitHub → Explain another repo

← aaravkashyap12 on gitmyhub — every repo by this author, as a profile.

Verify against the repo before relying on details.