Codexqa Code Analyzer

Code Analyzer

Local symbol graph for quality work: index first, then answer what changed, who is hit, what is untested, and where an error comes from.

There is no codexqa diff or codexqa review. Review a change with:

index --diff-base   →  change-groups  →  symbol-diff  →  callers / tests / entries

Pick the scenario before acting. Do not query or review a diff until an index exists. Do not run full-text search unless the user asked. README.md / README.zh-CN.md are human-facing. Do not load them at runtime.

Documents (load on demand)

Read this file first. Read another file only when the row below applies. Do not preload the whole tree.

| File | Load when | |---|---| | SKILL.md (this file) | always: routing, report contract, reject conditions | | [references/playbook.md](references/playbook.md) | entering a scenario (index health / change / defect / implementation / architecture) | | [references/diagrams.md](references/diagrams.md) | before drawing; copy init and classDef verbatim | | [references/cli.md](references/cli.md) | CLI missing, PATH, LLM, or maintenance | | [references/mcp.json](references/mcp.json) | graph-query tool schema is needed | | README.md, README.zh-CN.md | human-facing; not needed by the agent |

Scenario routing

Open [references/playbook.md](references/playbook.md) and jump to the named section.

| User is asking… | Playbook section | |---|---| | Review a PR / what changed / vs main | Review one change (index health first) | | Who is hit / what to regression-test | Regression scope under that change section | | Any unit tests / coverage gaps | Test gaps under that change section | | Which HTTP / RPC / MQ path reaches this | Entry risk under that change section | | Auth, payments, password, token | Sensitive paths under that change section | | Logs, stack, error text, comments | Locate a defect | | How does this function work / who calls it | Understand an implementation | | Module ownership / wrong layer | Architecture drift | | Results are empty / every change is default | Index health / Analysis blockers |

Report contract

Deliver a Mermaid evidence report (graph conclusions + diagrams). Not a product review, and not Archify / interactive HTML. Read [references/diagrams.md](references/diagrams.md) before drawing. A diagram that misses the quality bar fails the report.

Report body is only these blocks:

• Must-read groups (by risk)
• What changed (trust only symbol-diff / file-source vs file-base)
• Must-test callers / entries (must come from edges / reach / path / tagged)
• Test gaps (a tests directory is not a tests edge)
• Sensitive paths (write "none" if there are none)
• Diagrams: at least one, and it must pass the quality bar

Reject the whole report and rewrite if any of these hold:

• Written as a generic project review (product intro, use cases, scored pros/cons)
• Evidence comes from README / a website / guesswork, not this run of summary / imports / source / edges / reach / change-groups / symbol-diff
• Only names large files or high fan-in; never uses edges / reach to say who is hit
• Infers "covered" from a tests directory name; never checked tested_count or reach --direction in --edge-kinds tests
• Mermaid is missing the Claude paper init, the three classDef lines, or a core module that should be risk has no class ... risk
• Architecture subgraph titles are package names (Renderer / Compiler / Shared) instead of Entry → Application → Domain → Storage
• Interactive HTML / Archify canvas was generated (this skill does not ask for that)

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: openqa-cn
• Source: openqa-cn/codexqa
• License: Apache-2.0
• Homepage: https://openqa.cn

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.