Workspace Surface Audit

This is the ECC-native answer to setup-audit plugins. It does not modify files unless the user explicitly asks for follow-up implementation.

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:

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.