Audit the active repo, MCP servers, plugins, connectors, env surfaces, and harness setup, then recommend the highest-value ECC-native skills, hooks, agents, and operator workflows. Use when the user wants help setting up Claude Code or understanding what capabilities are actually available in their

Workspace Surface Audit Read only audit skill for answering the question "what can this workspace and machine actually do right now, and what should we add or enable next?" This is the ECC native answer to setup audit plugins. It does not modify files unless the user explicitly asks for follow up implementation. When to Use User says "set up Claude Code", "recommend automations", "what plugins or MCPs should I use?", or "what am I missing?" Auditing a machine or repo before installing more skills, hooks, or connectors Comparing official marketplace plugins against ECC native coverage Reviewing .env , .mcp.json , plugin settings, or connected app surfaces to find missing workflow layers Deciding whether a capability should be a skill, hook, agent, MCP, or external connector Non Negotiable Rules Never print secret values. Surface only provider names, capability names, file paths, and whether a key or config exists. Prefer ECC native workflows over generic "install another plugin" advice when ECC can reasonably own the surface. Treat external plugins as benchmarks and inspiration, not authoritative product boundaries. Separate three things clearly: already available now available but not wrapped well in ECC not available and would require a new integration Audit Inputs Inspect only the files and settings needed to answer the question well: 1. Repo surface package.json , lockfiles, language markers, framework config, README.md .mcp.json , .lsp.json , .claude/settings .json , .codex/ AGENTS.md , CLAUDE.md , install manifests, hook configs 2. Environment surface .env files in the active repo and obvious adjacent ECC workspaces Surface only key names such as STRIPE API KEY , TWILIO AUTH TOKEN , FAL KEY 3. Connected tool surface Installed plugins, enabled connectors, MCP servers, LSPs, and app integrations 4. ECC surface Existing skills, commands, hooks, agents, and install modules that already cover the need Audit Process Phase 1: Inventory What Exists Produce a compact inventory: active harness targets installed plugins and connected apps configured MCP servers configured LSP servers env backed services implied by key names existing ECC skills already relevant to the workspace If a surface exists only as a primitive, call that out. Example: "Stripe is available via connected app, but ECC lacks a billing operator skill" "Google Drive is connected, but there is no ECC native Google Workspace operator workflow" Phase 2: Benchmark Against Official and Installed Surfaces Compare the workspace against: official Claude plugins that overlap with setup, review, docs, design, or workflow quality locally installed plugins in Claude or Codex the user's currently connected app surfaces Do not just list names. For each comparison, answer: 1. what they actually do 2. whether ECC already has parity 3. whether ECC only has primitives 4. whether ECC is missing the workflow entirely Phase 3: Turn Gaps Into ECC Decisions For every real gap, recommend the correct ECC native shape: Gap Type Preferred ECC Shape Repeatable operator workflow Skill Automatic enforcement or side effect Hook Specialized delegated role Agent External tool bridge MCP server or connector Install/bootstrap guidance Setup or audit skill Default to user facing skills that orchestrate existing tools when the need is operational rather than infrastructural. Output Format Return five sections in this order: 1. Current surface what is already usable right now 2. Parity where ECC already matches or exceeds the benchmark 3. Primitive only gaps tools exist, but ECC lacks a clean operator skill 4. Missing integrations capability not available yet 5. Top 3 5 next moves concrete ECC native additions, ordered by impact Recommendation Rules Recommend at most 1 2 highest value ideas per category. Favor skills with obvious user intent and business value: setup audit billing/customer ops issue/program ops Google Workspace ops deployment/ops control If a connector is company specific, recommend it only when it is genuinely available or clearly useful to the user's workflow. If ECC already has a strong primitive, propose a wrapper skill instead of inventing a brand new subsystem. Good Outcomes The user can immediately see what is connected, what is missing, and what ECC should own next. Recommendations are specific enough to implement in the repo without another discovery pass. The final answer is organized around workflows, not API brands.

workspace-surface-audit