Agent Readiness Report

Evaluate how well a repository supports autonomous AI-assisted development.

What this does

Assess a codebase across five pillars that determine whether an AI agent can work effectively in a repository. The output is a structured report identifying what's present and what's missing.

Five Pillars

74 features total. See references/criteria.md for the full list with descriptions and evidence examples.

How to run

Step 1: Run the scanner scripts

Five shell scripts gather filesystem signals — file existence, config patterns, directory structures. They surface what's present so you don't have to run dozens of find commands manually.

bash scripts/scan_agent_instructions.sh /path/to/repo
bash scripts/scan_feedback_loops.sh /path/to/repo
bash scripts/scan_workflows.sh /path/to/repo
bash scripts/scan_policy.sh /path/to/repo
bash scripts/scan_build_env.sh /path/to/repo

Or scan all five at once:

for s in scripts/scan_*.sh; do bash "$s" /path/to/repo; echo; done

Important: The scripts are helpers, not scorers. They find files and patterns but do not evaluate quality. Many features require judgment that only reading the actual files can provide — for example, whether a README includes real build commands or just badges, whether inline documentation is systematic or scattered, whether an AI usage policy has meaningful boundaries.

Step 2: Evaluate each feature

Walk through references/criteria.md pillar by pillar. For each feature:

1. Check the scanner output for relevant signals
2. For features the scanner can't fully evaluate, inspect the files yourself
3. Mark each feature: ✓ (present), ✗ (missing), or — (not applicable)

Features that require judgment (not fully covered by scanners):

• Does the README actually contain build/run/test commands? (not just that it exists)
• Is inline documentation systematic across the public API?
• Are examples actually runnable?
• Does the contributing guide include code standards?
• Is there a meaningful AI usage policy?
• Is the architecture documentation current?
• Are tests documented well enough for an agent to run them?

Step 3: Write the report

Structure the output as:

# Agent Readiness Report: {repo name}

## Summary
- Features present: X / 74
- Strongest pillar: {pillar}
- Weakest pillar: {pillar}

## Pillar 1 · Agent Instructions (X / 18)
✓ Agent instruction file — AGENTS.md at root
✓ AI IDE configuration — .cursor/rules/ with 3 rule files
✗ Multi-model support — only Cursor configured
...

## Pillar 2 · Feedback Loops (X / 16)
...

## Pillar 3 · Workflows & Automation (X / 15)
...

## Pillar 4 · Policy & Governance (X / 13)
...

## Pillar 5 · Build & Dev Environment (X / 12)
...

For each passing feature, briefly note what evidence you found. For each failing feature, note what's missing.

What makes these features useful

Every feature answers: if this is missing, what goes wrong for the AI agent? Features like "agent instruction file" and "tool server configuration" exist because agents need them. Features like "linter" and "CI pipeline" exist because agents need fast, clear feedback on whether their changes are correct — not because they're general best practices.

The criteria were derived from analysis of 123 real repositories across five AI-readiness categories, then filtered for features that actually affect agent effectiveness.

Credits & Attribution

This skill is based on the excellent work by OpenHands.

Original repository: https://github.com/OpenHands/skills

Special thanks to OpenHands for their generous open-source contributions, which helped shape this skill collection. Adapted by webconsulting.at for this skill collection