Source profileQuality 92/100

terrylica/cc-skills/plugins/gh-tools/skills/fork-intelligence/SKILL.md

fork-intelligence

Discover valuable GitHub fork divergence beyond stars. TRIGGERS - fork analysis, fork intelligence, find forks

Source repository stars
61
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-08-26
Source checked
2026-08-28

Decision brief

What it does: where it fits

Systematic methodology for discovering valuable work in GitHub fork ecosystems. Stars-only filtering misses 60-100% of substantive forks — this skill uses branch-level divergence analysis, upstream PR cross-referencing, and domain-specific heuristics to find what matters.

Best for

    Not for

    • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
    • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

    Compatibility matrix

    Platform support, with evidence labels

    PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
    CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
    Open the compatibility checker

    Installation

    Inspect first. Install second.

    The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

    Source-detected install commandSource
    npx skills add https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills --skill "plugins/gh-tools/skills/fork-intelligence"
    Safe inspection promptEditorial

    Inspect the Agent Skill "fork-intelligence" from https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills/blob/05f53c5b24a445c1895e9b0590212e66cd70f39e/plugins/gh-tools/skills/fork-intelligence/SKILL.md at commit 05f53c5b24a445c1895e9b0590212e66cd70f39e. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

    Workflow

    What the source asks the agent to do

    1. 01

      Step 1: Upstream Baseline

      Review the “Step 1: Upstream Baseline” section in the pinned source before continuing.

      Review and apply the “Step 1: Upstream Baseline” source section.
    2. 02

      Step 2: List All Forks + Timestamp Clustering

      Review the “Step 2: List All Forks + Timestamp Clustering” section in the pinned source before continuing.

      Review and apply the “Step 2: List All Forks + Timestamp Clustering” source section.
    3. 03

      Step 3: Default Branch Divergence

      bash BRANCH=$(gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM" --jq '.defaultbranch')

      bash BRANCH=$(gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM" --jq '.defaultbranch')
    4. 04

      Step 4: Non-Default Branch Analysis (CRITICAL)

      This is the single biggest methodology improvement. Across all 10 repos tested, 50%+ of the most valuable fork work lived exclusively on feature branches.

      flowsurface/aviu16: 7,000-line GPU shader heatmap only on shader-heatmapArcticDB/DerThorsten: 147 commits across condabuild, clang, applechangespueue/FrancescElies: Duration display only on cesc/duration
    5. 05

      Step 5: Commit Content Evaluation

      Commit email domains reveal institutional contributors (@man.com, @quantstack.net)

      Commit email domains reveal institutional contributors (@man.com, @quantstack.net)Subtract merge commits from aheadby count (e.g., akeda2/pueue showed 35 ahead but 28 were upstream merges)Build system changes (CMakeLists.txt, Cargo.toml, pyproject.toml) indicate platform enablement

    Permission review

    Static risk signals and limitations

    No configured static risk pattern was detected

    This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

    Evidence record

    Why each signal appears

    EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
    SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
    Quality score92/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
    Repository stars61SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
    Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
    Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

    Pinned source

    Provenance and original SKILL.md

    Repository
    terrylica/cc-skills
    Skill path
    plugins/gh-tools/skills/fork-intelligence/SKILL.md
    Commit
    05f53c5b24a445c1895e9b0590212e66cd70f39e
    License
    MIT
    Collected
    2026-08-28
    Default branch
    main
    View the original SKILL.md

    Fork Intelligence

    Systematic methodology for discovering valuable work in GitHub fork ecosystems. Stars-only filtering misses 60-100% of substantive forks — this skill uses branch-level divergence analysis, upstream PR cross-referencing, and domain-specific heuristics to find what matters.

    Validated empirically across 10 repositories spanning Python, Rust, TypeScript, C++/Python, and Node.js (tensortrade, backtesting.py, kokoro, pymoo, firecrawl, barter-rs, pueue, dukascopy-node, ArcticDB, flowsurface).

    Self-Evolving Skill: This skill improves through use. If instructions are wrong, parameters drifted, or a workaround was needed — fix this file immediately, don't defer. Only update for real, reproducible issues.

    FIRST — TodoWrite Task Templates

    MANDATORY: Select and load the appropriate template before any fork analysis.

    Template A — Full Analysis (new repository)

    1. Get upstream baseline (stars, forks, default branch, last push)
    2. List all forks with pagination, note timestamp clusters
    3. Filter to unique-timestamp forks (skip bulk mirrors)
    4. Check default branch divergence (ahead_by/behind_by)
    5. Check non-default branches for all forks with recent push or >1 branch
    6. Evaluate commit content, author emails, tags/releases
    7. Cross-reference upstream PR history from fork owners
    8. Tier ranking and cross-fork convergence analysis
    9. Produce report with actionable recommendations
    

    Template B — Quick Scan (triage only)

    1. Get upstream baseline
    2. List forks, filter by timestamp clustering
    3. Check default branch divergence only
    4. Report forks with ahead_by > 0
    

    Template C — Targeted Fork Evaluation (specific fork)

    1. Compare fork vs upstream on all branches
    2. Examine commit messages and changed files
    3. Check for tags/releases, open issues, PRs
    4. Assess cherry-pick viability
    

    Signal Priority Order

    Ranked by empirical reliability across 10 repositories. See signal-priority.md for details.

    RankSignalReliabilityWhat It Catches
    1Branch-level divergenceHighestWork on feature branches (50%+ of substantive forks)
    2Upstream PR cross-referenceHighRebased/force-pushed work invisible to compare API
    3Tags/releases on forkHighIndependent maintenance intent
    4Commit email domainsHighInstitutional contributors (@company.com)
    5Timestamp clusteringMediumEliminates 85%+ mirror noise
    6Cross-fork convergenceMediumReveals unmet upstream demand
    7StarsLowestOften anti-correlated with actual value

    Pipeline — 7 Steps

    Step 1: Upstream Baseline

    UPSTREAM="OWNER/REPO"
    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM" --jq '{forks_count, pushed_at, default_branch, stargazers_count}'
    

    Step 2: List All Forks + Timestamp Clustering

    # List all forks with activity signals
    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM/forks" --paginate \
      --jq '.[] | {full_name, pushed_at, stargazers_count, default_branch}'
    

    Timestamp clustering: Forks sharing exact pushed_at with upstream are bulk mirrors created by GitHub's fork mechanism and never touched. Group by pushed_at — forks with unique timestamps warrant investigation. This alone eliminates 85%+ of noise.

    # Filter to unique-timestamp forks (skip bulk mirrors)
    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM/forks" --paginate \
      --jq '.[] | {full_name, pushed_at, stargazers_count}' | \
      jq -s 'group_by(.pushed_at) | map(select(length == 1)) | flatten'
    

    Step 3: Default Branch Divergence

    BRANCH=$(gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM" --jq '.default_branch')
    
    # For each candidate fork
    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM/compare/$BRANCH...FORK_OWNER:$BRANCH" \
      --jq '{ahead_by, behind_by, status}'
    

    The status field meanings:

    • identical — pure mirror, skip
    • behind — stale mirror, skip
    • diverged — has original commits AND is behind (interesting)
    • ahead — has original commits, up-to-date with upstream (rare, most valuable)

    Important: Always compare from the upstream repo's perspective (repos/UPSTREAM/compare/...). The reverse direction (repos/FORK/compare/...) returns 404 for some repositories.

    Step 4: Non-Default Branch Analysis (CRITICAL)

    This is the single biggest methodology improvement. Across all 10 repos tested, 50%+ of the most valuable fork work lived exclusively on feature branches.

    Examples:

    • flowsurface/aviu16: 7,000-line GPU shader heatmap only on shader-heatmap
    • ArcticDB/DerThorsten: 147 commits across conda_build, clang, apple_changes
    • pueue/FrancescElies: Duration display only on cesc/duration
    • barter-rs: 6 of 12 top forks had work only on feature branches
    # List branches on a fork
    gh api "repos/FORK_OWNER/REPO/branches" --jq '.[].name' | head -20
    
    # Check divergence on a specific branch
    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM/compare/$BRANCH...FORK_OWNER:FEATURE_BRANCH" \
      --jq '{ahead_by, behind_by, status}'
    

    Heuristics for which forks need branch checks:

    • Any fork with pushed_at more recent than upstream but ahead_by == 0 on default branch
    • Any fork with more than 1 branch
    • Branch count > 10 is suspicious — likely non-trivial work (ArcticDB: Rohan-flutterint had 197 branches)

    Step 5: Commit Content Evaluation

    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM/compare/$BRANCH...FORK_OWNER:BRANCH" \
      --jq '.commits[] | {sha: .sha[:8], message: .commit.message | split("\n")[0], date: .commit.committer.date[:10], author: .commit.author.email}'
    

    What to look for:

    • Commit email domains reveal institutional contributors (@man.com, @quantstack.net)
    • Subtract merge commits from ahead_by count (e.g., akeda2/pueue showed 35 ahead but 28 were upstream merges)
    • Build system changes (CMakeLists.txt, Cargo.toml, pyproject.toml) indicate platform enablement
    • Protobuf schema changes indicate architectural-level features
    • Test files alongside source changes signal production-intent work

    Step 6: Fork-Specific Signals

    # Tags/releases (strongest independent maintenance signal)
    gh api "repos/FORK_OWNER/REPO/tags" --jq '.[].name' | head -10
    gh api "repos/FORK_OWNER/REPO/releases" --jq '.[] | {tag_name, name, published_at}' | head -5
    
    # Open issues on the fork (signals independent project maintenance)
    gh api "repos/FORK_OWNER/REPO/issues?state=open" --jq 'length'
    
    # Check if repo was renamed (strong divergence intent signal)
    gh api "repos/FORK_OWNER/REPO" --jq '.name'
    
    SignalStrengthExample
    Tags/releases on forkHighestpueue/freesrz93 had 6 releases
    Open PRs against upstreamHighFormal proposals with review context
    Open issues on the forkHighIndependent project maintenance
    Repo renamedMediumflowsurface/sinaha81 became volume_flow
    Build config changesHigh (compiled languages)Cargo.toml, CMakeLists.txt diff
    Description changedWeakMany vanity renames with no code

    Step 7: Cross-Fork Convergence + Upstream PR History

    # Check upstream PRs from fork owners
    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM/pulls?state=all" --paginate \
      --jq '.[] | select(.head.repo.fork) | {number, title, state, user: .user.login}'
    

    Cross-fork convergence: When multiple forks independently solve the same problem, it signals unmet upstream demand:

    • firecrawl: 3 forks adopted Patchright for anti-detection
    • flowsurface: 3 forks added technical indicators independently
    • kokoro: 2 independent batched inference implementations
    • barter-rs: 4 forks added Bybit support

    Upstream PR cross-reference catches:

    • Rebased/force-pushed work invisible to compare API
    • Work that was merged upstream (fork shows 0 ahead but was historically significant)
    • Declined PRs with valuable code that the fork still maintains

    Tier Classification

    After running the pipeline, classify forks into tiers:

    TierCriteriaAction
    Tier 1: Major ExtensionsNew features, architectural changes, >10 original commitsDeep evaluation, cherry-pick candidates
    Tier 2: Targeted FeaturesFocused additions, bug fixes, 2-10 commitsCherry-pick individual commits
    Tier 3: InfrastructureCI/CD, packaging, deployment, docsEvaluate if relevant to your setup
    Tier 4: HistoricalMerged upstream or stale but once significantNote for context, no action needed

    Domain-Specific Patterns

    Different codebases exhibit different fork behaviors. See domain-patterns.md for full details.

    DomainKey PatternExample
    Scientific/MLResearchers fork-implement-publish-vanish, zero social engagementpymoo: 300-file fork with 0 stars
    Trading/FinanceExchange connectors dominate; best forks are privatebarter-rs: 4 independent Bybit impls
    Infrastructure/DevToolsSelf-hosting/SaaS-removal is the dominant themefirecrawl: devflowinc/firecrawl-simple (630 stars)
    C++/Python MixedFeature work lives on branches; email domains reveal institutionsArcticDB: @man.com, @quantstack.net
    Node.js LibrariesCheck npm publication as separate packagesdukascopy-node: kyo06 published dukascopy-node-plus
    Rust CLICargo.toml diff is reliable quick filter; "superset" forks add subcommandspueue: freesrz93 added 7 subcommands

    Quick-Scan Pipeline (5-minute triage)

    For rapid triage of any new repo:

    UPSTREAM="OWNER/REPO"
    BRANCH=$(gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM" --jq '.default_branch')
    
    # 1. Baseline
    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM" --jq '{forks_count, pushed_at, stargazers_count}'
    
    # 2. Forks with unique timestamps (skip mirrors)
    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM/forks" --paginate \
      --jq '.[] | {full_name, pushed_at, stargazers_count}' | \
      jq -s 'group_by(.pushed_at) | map(select(length == 1)) | flatten | sort_by(.pushed_at) | reverse'
    
    # 3. Check ahead_by for each candidate
    # (loop over candidates from step 2)
    
    # 4. Check upstream PRs from fork authors
    gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM/pulls?state=all" --paginate \
      --jq '.[] | select(.head.repo.fork) | {number, title, state, user: .user.login}'
    

    Known Limitations

    LimitationImpactWorkaround
    GitHub compare API 250-commit limitHighly divergent forks may truncateUse gh api repos/FORK/commits?per_page=1 to get total count
    Private forks invisibleTrading firms keep best work privateAccepted limitation
    Force-pushed branches break compare APIShows 0 ahead despite significant workCross-reference upstream PR history
    Renamed forks may break API callsOld URLs may 404Use gh api repos/FORK_OWNER/REPO --jq '.name' to detect renames
    Rate limiting on large fork ecosystems>1000 forks = many API callsUse timestamp clustering to reduce calls by 85%+
    Maintainer dev forks look like independent workBranch names 1:1 with upstream PRsCross-reference branch names against upstream PR branch names

    Report Template

    Use this structure for the final analysis report:

    # Fork Analysis Report: OWNER/REPO
    
    **Repository**: OWNER/REPO (N stars, M forks)
    **Analysis date**: YYYY-MM-DD
    
    ## Fork Landscape Summary
    
    | Metric                                | Value  |
    | ------------------------------------- | ------ |
    | Total forks                           | N      |
    | Pure mirrors                          | N (X%) |
    | Divergent forks (ahead on any branch) | N      |
    | Substantive forks (meaningful work)   | N      |
    | Stars-only miss rate                  | X%     |
    
    ## Tiered Ranking
    
    ### Tier 1: Major Extensions
    
    (fork details with ahead_by, key features, files changed)
    
    ### Tier 2: Targeted Features
    
    ...
    
    ### Tier 3: Infrastructure/Packaging
    
    ...
    
    ## Cross-Fork Convergence Patterns
    
    (themes that multiple forks independently implemented)
    
    ## Actionable Recommendations
    
    - Cherry-pick candidates
    - Feature inspiration
    - Security fixes
    

    Post-Change Checklist

    After modifying THIS skill:

    1. YAML frontmatter valid (no colons in description)
    2. Trigger keywords current in description
    3. All ./references/ links resolve
    4. Pipeline steps numbered consistently
    5. Shell commands tested against a real repository
    6. Append changes to evolution-log.md

    Post-Execution Reflection

    After this skill completes, reflect before closing the task:

    1. Locate yourself. — Find this SKILL.md's canonical path before editing.
    2. What failed? — Fix the instruction that caused it.
    3. What worked better than expected? — Promote to recommended practice.
    4. What drifted? — Fix any script, reference, or dependency that no longer matches reality.
    5. Log it. — Evolution-log entry with trigger, fix, and evidence.

    Do NOT defer. The next invocation inherits whatever you leave behind.

    Frequently asked questions

    What to verify before installation and use

    What does the fork-intelligence source document cover?

    Systematic methodology for discovering valuable work in GitHub fork ecosystems. Stars-only filtering misses 60-100% of substantive forks — this skill uses branch-level divergence analysis, upstream PR cross-referencing, and domain-specific heuristics to find what matters.

    How do I install fork-intelligence?

    The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills --skill "plugins/gh-tools/skills/fork-intelligence". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

    Alternatives

    Compare before choosing

    Computed 10045,960

    coreyhaines31/marketingskills

    ab-testing

    When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program

    Computed 10045,960

    coreyhaines31/marketingskills

    churn-prevention

    When the user wants to reduce churn, build cancellation flows, set up save offers, recover failed payments, or implement retention strategies. Also use when the user mentions 'churn,' 'cancel flow,' 'offboarding,' 'save offer,' 'dunning,' 'failed payment recovery,' 'win-back,' 'retention,' 'exit survey,' 'pause subscription,' 'involuntary churn,' 'people keep canceling,' 'churn rate is too high,' 'how do I keep users,' or 'customers are leaving.' Use this whenever someone is losing subscribers o

    Computed 10025,136

    alirezarezvani/claude-skills

    app-store-optimization

    App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching keywords, analyzing competitor rankings, generating metadata suggestions, and improving app visibility on Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Use when the user asks about ASO, app store rankings, app metadata, app titles and descriptions, app store listings, app visibility, or mobile app marketing on iOS or Android. Supports keyword research and scoring, competitor keyword analysis, metadata optimization, A/B test planning, launch checklist

    Computed 10015,385

    wanshuiyin/Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep

    citation-audit

    Use it for operations and research tasks; the detail page covers purpose, installation, and practical steps.