agentleFS
AlpacaLabsLLCAlpacaLabsLLC/skills-for-architects/skills/product-audit/SKILL.md

product-audit

Skill390 starsChanged 55 days agoMITView on GitHub

Audit a product, selection or FF&E schedule against sourced evidence and flag discrepancies, unknowns and stale specifications. Use to check product data; not to repair records, certify compliance or generate cut sheets.

4 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Before acting, read the host contract and this component's declaration (skill:product-audit).

    line 16
  2. Very specific:

    When an explicitly selected before/after native .xlsx or .xlsm pair and permitted cell edits are available, load the complete workbook …

    line 54

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

/as:product-audit — Audit a product selection

Before acting, read the host contract and this component's declaration (skill:product-audit). Load only its referenced mode profiles from the shared catalog. Compose modes required by the actual task; declarations are requirements, not proof of access or permission.

<!-- architecture-studio:harness-compatibility -->

Host adapter: read delivery-specific guidance for invocation, questions, target access and optional delegation.

Input and authority

For source-independent captured evidence, use the shared product-observation adapter with explicit item/revision bindings. Include its conflicts and notices alongside the legacy audit projection; never discard identity, variant, unit, currency, or price-basis uncertainty when reporting findings.

Accept one item, selected tags, or a complete schedule. For project records, resolve exact native project context and read its instructions. A missing/ambiguous boundary is not permission to create a project. One-off comparison uses an explicitly supplied snapshot without adoption. Read the complete native audit owner and input schema.

For adopted schedules, use /as:master-schedule to read the pinned item/schedule revisions. Item IDs are immutable; tags and workbook rows are only locators. An old workbook or optional product-library.csv does not override current records. One-off library comparisons retain the exact header and CSV conventions.

Steps

  1. Establish the requested scope, revision, source basis and live versus snapshot mode. Default a request to check current product facts to live retrieval. No routine second confirmation is needed for a read-only comparison.
  2. Live audit always retrieves/re-parses the relevant sources in this invocation. Use the host browser/PDF capabilities; do not present cached catalog data as freshly verified. Record source/page or field locator and observed-at time. If access fails, keep unavailable; do not downgrade to snapshot comparison silently. Snapshot mode explicitly compares saved observations and cannot establish current facts.
  3. Separate manufacturer/dealer, selected versus available configuration, actual model/accessory and installed/cutout dimensions. Preserve unknown prices/currency, evidence conflicts and user overrides. A variant combination is not a manufacturer-confirmed SKU without source evidence.
  4. Build the complete typed input and apply ffe_audit.assess through available native capabilities under its owning semantics. It compares supplied observations only, performs no retrieval and cannot authenticate the host's evidence. Preserve strict number kinds, ASCII-escaped logical input hash, full findings order and exact comparison counts. Missing validation capability is a limitation, not a successful check.
  5. Present discrepancies, missing evidence, stale observations and conflicting sources, tied to immutable item/revision and field. Exact value comparisons do not convert units: resolve dimensional meaning and units before constructing comparable observations. Missing evidence is unknown, not proof that the specification is wrong.
  6. When a durable report is requested/authorized, preview the exact collision-safe target under ffe/jobs/<job-id>/audits/, then save the report and source references. Use one confirmation gate only if required and not already authorized. Refuse overwrite; preserve previous reports. Do not persist machine-absolute paths in records. Report the actual file created.

Output and handoff

The schema/result includes input hash, item IDs/revisions, source locators, findings and comparison mode. matches-supplied-observations means only that the supplied values match; it is not product certification or legal compliance.

Audit does not mutate item/schedule specifications, decisions, recovery snapshots or the optional library. Propose corrections to /as:master-schedule; sourcing goes to /as:product-research, PDF/URL extraction to their existing skills. Selection rationale and approval go through /as:project; never infer them from an artifact or audit result. After resolved findings, /as:product-cut-sheet and /as:ffe-spec-book consume the exact selected revisions. Cross-skill handoff does not require a subagent or separate Norma runtime.

Native report publication and handoff

Apply the native mutation sequence to the complete report set: original snapshot/source evidence and identity/revision guards, output absence, full prepared report and recoverable pending intent. Finish durable saves and independently reopen all actual original/prepared bytes and access metadata before first publication. Use no-clobber publication, preserve older reports and all source records, and reopen every actual output's full bytes and mode/applicable ownership/ACLs before completion. A correct hash or creation-mode argument alone is not readback. Exact retry verifies the prior result without duplicate allocation; changed or uncertain state needs reconciliation.

A registered deliverable goes through receive's native document owner for exact placement/query/registration; do not compose document folders from labels. One-off reports use only the authorized task destination. Keep source data separate from execution authority and preserve user-selected scope. Existing exact authorization persists, so request only missing material scope or host permission. Any unavailable protection or failed result verification remains explicitly blocked/pending with recovery evidence.

Operation IDs are semantic responsibilities, not a dispatch API to recreate. No Arch Studio runtime, installer or source handoff is required. Separate actual host retrieval, assessment, report publication and owner handoffs in the final evidence; instructions delivered or a validator receipt alone cannot establish completion.

Native workbook preservation comparison

When an explicitly selected before/after native .xlsx or .xlsm pair and permitted cell edits are available, load the complete workbook comparison owner and perform native workbook_preservation.compare with actual ZIP/XML inspection. Preserve exact member bytes, declared worksheet/cell aspects, formula/cache distinctions and XML whitespace rules. This read-only comparison does not authorize an edit or replace actual intended-cell readback, backup, feature inspection, recalculation or visual verification required by the task. Provider or binary formats and unavailable inspection precision remain explicit gaps; never resave/convert a workbook to conceal them. No Arch Studio helper or process runtime is mandatory.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.