Github Explorer

GitHub Explorer — In-Depth Project Analysis

Philosophy: The README is only the storefront; the real value lies in Issues, Commits, and community discussions.

Workflow

Copy code
[Project name] → [1. Locate Repo] → [2. Gather Multiple Sources] → [3. Analyze and Assess] → [4. Structured Output]

Phase 1: Locate Repo

• Use web_search to search site:github.com <project_name> and confirm the full org/repo
• Use an available search tool to find additional community links and non-GitHub resources with queries such as <project_name> review and <project_name> 评测 使用体验.
• Use web_fetch to fetch the repo homepage for basic information (README, Stars, Forks, License, last update)

Phase 2: Gather Multiple Sources (In Parallel)

Check the following sources as needed; collect what exists and skip what does not:

Search Tools and Queries

This repository does not include the search-layer or content-extract skills or their scripts. web_search, web_fetch, and browser mean the corresponding capabilities in the current environment; use the tool names actually available. If enhancement skills are separately installed, read their own instructions and confirm dependencies and invocation paths first. Otherwise, run the following searches directly without those scripts.

If a source or enhancement tool fails, continue with available sources and state the coverage limitations in the report. Without search capability, analyze only the readable repository and user-provided material; do not claim that community research was completed.

Extraction Fallback and Upgrade Protocol (Extraction Upgrade)

In these situations, switch to an available browser or platform reader, or use an installed content-extraction skill:

1. Restricted domains: mp.weixin.qq.com, zhihu.com, xiaohongshu.com.
2. Complex structure: The page contains many formulas (LaTeX), complex tables, or extremely messy Markdown returned by web_fetch.
3. Missing content: Anti-scraping defenses cause web_fetch to return empty content or a challenge page.

If reading still fails, retain the URL, mark it as "Could not read," and seek independent sources. Do not treat search snippets as full text that was read, or count inaccessible discussions as verified evidence.

Phase 3: Analyze and Assess

Make judgments based on the collected data:

• Project stage: Early experiment / rapid growth / mature and stable / maintenance mode / stalled, based on commit frequency and content
• Featured Issue criteria: Many comments, maintainer participation, exposure of architectural problems, or valuable technical discussion
• Competitor identification: Extract from README "Comparison"/"Alternatives" sections, Issues discussions, and web searches

Phase 4: Structured Output

Follow the template below strictly, translating its headings, labels, and status messages into the selected output language. Every section must contain substantive content or explicitly say "Not found" in that language.

Formatting Rules (Mandatory)

1. The title must link to the GitHub repository (format: # [Project Name](https://github.com/org/repo), ensuring it is clickable)
2. Put a blank line both before and after every heading (end of previous section → blank line → heading → blank line → content, for clear visual separation)
3. Telegram blank-line fix (mandatory): Telegram swallows blank lines after list items (lines starting with -). To fix this, insert a line containing a braille blank ⠀ (U+2800) between the end of the list and the next heading, as follows:

   Copy code
   - Last list item
   
   ⠀
   **Next heading**
   

   This ensures Telegram preserves the blank line before the heading when rendering.
4. Make all headings bold (emoji + bold text)
5. Competitor comparisons must include links (at least one of GitHub / official website / documentation)
6. Community discussion must be specific: Summarize concrete posts, tweets, or discussions and link to the originals. Do not write generalities such as "highly rated" or "very popular"; state who said what or which specific problem a post discussed
7. Source traceability: All external information cited should include the original link so readers can trace it to the source

markdownCopy code
# [{Project Name}]({GitHub Repo URL})

**🎯 One-Sentence Positioning**

{What it is and what problem it solves}

**⚙️ Core Mechanism**

{Explain the technical principles / architecture in plain language, without copying the README. Include the key technology stack.}

**📊 Project Health**

- **Stars**: {Count}  |  **Forks**: {Count}  |  **License**: {Type}
- **Team / Author**: {Background}
- **Commit trend**: {Recent activity + assessment of project stage}
- **Latest developments**: {Summary of the latest important commits}

**🔥 Featured Issues**

{Top 3-5 high-quality Issues, each with a title, link, and key discussion points. State explicitly if there are no high-quality Issues.}

**✅ Suitable Use Cases**

{When to use it and which specific problems it solves}

**⚠️ Limitations**

{When to avoid it; known problems}

**🆚 Competitor Comparison**

{Compare projects in the same space and their differences. Every competitor must have a GitHub or official website link. Example format:}
- **vs [GraphRAG](https://github.com/microsoft/graphrag)** — Description of differences
- **vs [RAGFlow](https://github.com/infiniflow/ragflow)** — Description of differences

**🌐 Knowledge Graph**

- **DeepWiki**: {Link or "Not indexed"}
- **Zread.ai**: {Link or "Not indexed"}

**🎬 Demo**

{Live demo link or "None"}

**📄 Related Papers**

{arXiv link or "None"}

**📰 Community Discussion**

**X/Twitter**

{Summaries of specific tweets + links. Example format:}
- [@user](link): "What they specifically said..."
- [Discussion thread](link): The specific problem discussed...
{If nothing is found, state "No relevant discussion found"}

**Chinese-Language Communities**

{Specific post titles / content summaries + links. Example format:}
- [Zhihu: Post title](link) — What was discussed
- [V2EX: Post title](link) — What was discussed
{If nothing is found, state "No relevant discussion found"}

**💬 My Assessment**

{Subjective evaluation: whether it is worth the time, what experience level it suits, and how to use it}

Execution Notes

• Prefer web_search + web_fetch, with browser as a fallback
• Search enhancement: Use available search sources; use extra skills only after confirming their installation and reading their instructions. One source failing must not block the main workflow; disclose insufficient coverage
• Extraction fallback: If web_fetch fails or returns incomplete content, switch to an available browser, platform reader, or installed extraction skill. If the content remains unreadable, mark it and seek other sources
• Collect different sources in parallel for efficiency
• All links must be real and accessible; do not invent URLs
• Follow the runtime product Language instruction for the report throughout the current product, including pauses and restarts. A requested language change applies to the next product. If no product language is assigned, follow explicit human language instructions or the user's language. Keep technical terms in English. The English skill source and template do not set the output language
• Leave language preference changes to the human-operated settings interface; do not edit saved language configuration or the current product's language state

⚠️ Output Self-Check (Mandatory Before Every Response)

Before sending a report, you must check every item below, and send it only when all pass:

• Title link: Uses # [Project Name](GitHub URL) and is clickable
• Heading spacing: A blank line before and after every bold heading (**🎯 ...**)
• Telegram blank lines: A braille blank ⠀ line between the end of each list block and the next heading, preventing Telegram from swallowing blank lines
• Issue links: Every featured Issue uses the full [#number Title](full URL) format
• Competitor links: Every competitor has [Name](GitHub / official website URL)
• Community discussion links: Every citation uses [Source: Title](URL)
• No vague descriptions: The community section contains no generalities such as "highly rated" or "very popular"
• Source traceability: All external citations include original links

Dependencies

These names describe required capabilities and optional enhancements; they do not mean Auto-Company has installed or configured these tools: