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.
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
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
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.
npx skills add https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills --skill "plugins/gh-tools/skills/fork-intelligence"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
- 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. - 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. - 03
Step 3: Default Branch Divergence
bash BRANCH=$(gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM" --jq '.defaultbranch')
bash BRANCH=$(gh api "repos/$UPSTREAM" --jq '.defaultbranch') - 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 - 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
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 92/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 61 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated 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.
| Rank | Signal | Reliability | What It Catches |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Branch-level divergence | Highest | Work on feature branches (50%+ of substantive forks) |
| 2 | Upstream PR cross-reference | High | Rebased/force-pushed work invisible to compare API |
| 3 | Tags/releases on fork | High | Independent maintenance intent |
| 4 | Commit email domains | High | Institutional contributors (@company.com) |
| 5 | Timestamp clustering | Medium | Eliminates 85%+ mirror noise |
| 6 | Cross-fork convergence | Medium | Reveals unmet upstream demand |
| 7 | Stars | Lowest | Often 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, skipbehind— stale mirror, skipdiverged— 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_atmore recent than upstream butahead_by == 0on 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'
| Signal | Strength | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Tags/releases on fork | Highest | pueue/freesrz93 had 6 releases |
| Open PRs against upstream | High | Formal proposals with review context |
| Open issues on the fork | High | Independent project maintenance |
| Repo renamed | Medium | flowsurface/sinaha81 became volume_flow |
| Build config changes | High (compiled languages) | Cargo.toml, CMakeLists.txt diff |
| Description changed | Weak | Many 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:
| Tier | Criteria | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1: Major Extensions | New features, architectural changes, >10 original commits | Deep evaluation, cherry-pick candidates |
| Tier 2: Targeted Features | Focused additions, bug fixes, 2-10 commits | Cherry-pick individual commits |
| Tier 3: Infrastructure | CI/CD, packaging, deployment, docs | Evaluate if relevant to your setup |
| Tier 4: Historical | Merged upstream or stale but once significant | Note for context, no action needed |
Domain-Specific Patterns
Different codebases exhibit different fork behaviors. See domain-patterns.md for full details.
| Domain | Key Pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific/ML | Researchers fork-implement-publish-vanish, zero social engagement | pymoo: 300-file fork with 0 stars |
| Trading/Finance | Exchange connectors dominate; best forks are private | barter-rs: 4 independent Bybit impls |
| Infrastructure/DevTools | Self-hosting/SaaS-removal is the dominant theme | firecrawl: devflowinc/firecrawl-simple (630 stars) |
| C++/Python Mixed | Feature work lives on branches; email domains reveal institutions | ArcticDB: @man.com, @quantstack.net |
| Node.js Libraries | Check npm publication as separate packages | dukascopy-node: kyo06 published dukascopy-node-plus |
| Rust CLI | Cargo.toml diff is reliable quick filter; "superset" forks add subcommands | pueue: 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
| Limitation | Impact | Workaround |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub compare API 250-commit limit | Highly divergent forks may truncate | Use gh api repos/FORK/commits?per_page=1 to get total count |
| Private forks invisible | Trading firms keep best work private | Accepted limitation |
| Force-pushed branches break compare API | Shows 0 ahead despite significant work | Cross-reference upstream PR history |
| Renamed forks may break API calls | Old URLs may 404 | Use gh api repos/FORK_OWNER/REPO --jq '.name' to detect renames |
| Rate limiting on large fork ecosystems | >1000 forks = many API calls | Use timestamp clustering to reduce calls by 85%+ |
| Maintainer dev forks look like independent work | Branch names 1:1 with upstream PRs | Cross-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:
- YAML frontmatter valid (no colons in description)
- Trigger keywords current in description
- All
./references/links resolve - Pipeline steps numbered consistently
- Shell commands tested against a real repository
- Append changes to evolution-log.md
Post-Execution Reflection
After this skill completes, reflect before closing the task:
- Locate yourself. — Find this SKILL.md's canonical path before editing.
- What failed? — Fix the instruction that caused it.
- What worked better than expected? — Promote to recommended practice.
- What drifted? — Fix any script, reference, or dependency that no longer matches reality.
- 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
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
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
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
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.