Analyze Codebase Workflow

Survey an arbitrary repository to auto-detect data flows, file I/O, and script dependencies, then produce a structured annotation plan for manual refinement.

When to Use

• Onboarding onto an unfamiliar codebase and need to understand data flow
• Starting putior integration in a project that has no PUT annotations yet
• Auditing an existing project's data pipeline before documentation
• Preparing an annotation plan before running

  annotate-source-files

Inputs

• Required: Path to the repository or source directory to analyze
• Optional: Specific subdirectories to focus on (default: entire repo)
• Optional: Languages to include or exclude (default: all detected)
• Optional: Detection scope: inputs only, outputs only, or both (default: both + dependencies)

Procedure

Step 1: Survey Repository Structure

Identify source files and their languages to understand what putior can analyze.

library(putior)

# List all supported languages and their extensions
list_supported_languages()
list_supported_languages(detection_only = TRUE)  # Only languages with auto-detection

# Get supported extensions
exts <- get_supported_extensions()

Use file listing to understand repo composition:

# Count files by extension in the target directory
find /path/to/repo -type f | sed 's/.*\.//' | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -20

Got: A list of file extensions present in the repo, with counts. Map these against

get_supported_extensions()

to know coverage.

If fail: If the repo has no files matching supported extensions, putior cannot auto-detect workflows. Consider whether the language is supported but files use non-standard extensions.

Step 2: Check Language Detection Coverage

For each detected language, verify auto-detection pattern availability.

# Check which languages have auto-detection patterns (18 languages, 902 patterns)
detection_langs <- list_supported_languages(detection_only = TRUE)
cat("Languages with auto-detection:\n")
print(detection_langs)

# Get pattern counts for specific languages found in the repo
for (lang in c("r", "python", "javascript", "sql", "dockerfile", "makefile")) {
  patterns <- get_detection_patterns(lang)
  cat(sprintf("%s: %d input, %d output, %d dependency patterns\n",
    lang,
    length(patterns$input),
    length(patterns$output),
    length(patterns$dependency)
  ))
}

Got: Pattern counts printed for each language. R has 124 patterns, Python 159, JavaScript 71, etc.

If fail: If a language returns no patterns, it supports manual annotations but not auto-detection. Plan to annotate those files manually.

Step 3: Run Auto-Detection

Execute

put_auto()

on the target directory to discover workflow elements.

# Full auto-detection
workflow <- put_auto("./src/",
  detect_inputs = TRUE,
  detect_outputs = TRUE,
  detect_dependencies = TRUE
)

# Exclude build scripts and test helpers from scanning
workflow <- put_auto("./src/",
  detect_inputs = TRUE,
  detect_outputs = TRUE,
  detect_dependencies = TRUE,
  exclude = c("build-", "test_helper")
)

# View detected workflow nodes
print(workflow)

# Check node count
cat(sprintf("Detected %d workflow nodes\n", nrow(workflow)))

For large repos, analyze subdirectories incrementally:

# Analyze specific subdirectories
etl_workflow <- put_auto("./src/etl/")
api_workflow <- put_auto("./src/api/")

Got: A data frame with columns including

id

,

label

,

input

,

output

,

source_file

. Each row represents a detected workflow step.

If fail: If the result is empty, the source files may not contain recognizable I/O patterns. Try enabling debug logging:

workflow <- put_auto("./src/", log_level = "DEBUG")

to see which files are scanned and which patterns match.

Step 4: Generate Initial Diagram

Visualize the auto-detected workflow to assess coverage and identify gaps.

# Generate diagram from auto-detected workflow
cat(put_diagram(workflow, theme = "github"))

# With source file info for traceability
cat(put_diagram(workflow, show_source_info = TRUE))

# Save to file for review
writeLines(put_diagram(workflow, theme = "github"), "workflow-auto.md")

Got: A Mermaid flowchart showing detected nodes connected by data flow edges. Nodes should be labeled with meaningful function/file names.

If fail: If the diagram shows disconnected nodes, the auto-detection found I/O patterns but couldn't infer connections. This is normal — connections are derived from matching output filenames to input filenames. The annotation plan (next step) will address gaps.

Step 5: Produce Annotation Plan

Generate a structured plan documenting what was found and what needs manual annotation.

# Generate annotation suggestions
put_generate("./src/", style = "single")

# For multiline style (more readable for complex workflows)
put_generate("./src/", style = "multiline")

# Copy suggestions to clipboard for easy pasting
put_generate("./src/", output = "clipboard")

Document the plan with coverage assessment:

## Annotation Plan

### Auto-Detected (no manual work needed)
- `src/etl/extract.R` — 3 inputs, 2 outputs detected
- `src/etl/transform.py` — 1 input, 1 output detected

### Needs Manual Annotation
- `src/api/handler.js` — Language supported but no I/O patterns matched
- `src/config/setup.sh` — Only 12 shell patterns; complex logic missed

### Not Supported
- `src/legacy/process.f90` — Fortran not in detection languages

### Recommended Connections
- extract.R output `data.csv` → transform.py input `data.csv` (auto-linked)
- transform.py output `clean.parquet` → load.R input (needs annotation)

Got: A clear plan separating auto-detected files from those needing manual annotation, with specific recommendations for each file.

If fail: If

put_generate()

produces no output, ensure the directory path is correct and contains source files in supported languages.

Validation

• put_auto()

  executes without errors on the target directory
• Detected workflow has at least one node (unless repo has no recognizable I/O)

• put_diagram()

  produces valid Mermaid code from the auto-detected workflow

• put_generate()

  produces annotation suggestions for files with detected patterns
• Annotation plan document created with coverage assessment

Pitfalls

• Scanning too broadly: Running

  put_auto(".")

  on a repo root may include

  node_modules/

  ,

  .git/

  ,

  venv/

  , etc. Target specific source directories.
• Expecting full coverage: Auto-detection finds file I/O and library calls, not business logic. A 40-60% coverage rate is typical; the rest needs manual annotation.
• Ignoring dependencies: The

  detect_dependencies = TRUE

  flag catches

  source()

  ,

  import

  ,

  require()

  calls that link scripts together. Disabling it loses cross-file connections.
• Language mismatch: Files with non-standard extensions (e.g.,

  .R

  vs

  .r

  ,

  .jsx

  vs

  .js

  ) may not be detected. Use

  get_comment_prefix()

  to check if an extension is recognized. Note that extensionless files like

  Dockerfile

  and

  Makefile

  are supported via exact filename matching.
• Large repos: For repos with 100+ source files, analyze by module/directory to keep diagrams readable.

Related Skills

• install-putior

  — prerequisite: putior must be installed first

• annotate-source-files

  — next step: add manual annotations based on the plan

• generate-workflow-diagram

  — generate final diagram after annotation is complete

• configure-putior-mcp

  — use MCP tools for interactive analysis sessions