agentleFS
BilLogicBilLogic/uno-blueprint/skills/audit/SKILL.md

audit

Skill4 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub

Blueprint audit — run the consistency-check roster over an imported blueprint (gaps, jargon, channel conflicts, KPI drift, ownership, value dead-ends, hidden fees), recording findings ranked by impact and effort; re-run the checks, or dismiss or resolve a finding. Building → ub:map; hypothetical changes → ub:whatif.

194 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use delight, teach-impeccable and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • HK-hubSkill

    delight

    Add moments of joy, personality, and unexpected touches that make interfaces memorable and enjoyable to use. Elevates functional to delightful. Use when the user asks to add polish, personality, animations, micro-interactions, delight, or make an interface feel fun or memorable.

    Also in 32 projects that use this

  • HK-hubSkill

    teach-impeccable

    One-time setup that gathers design context for your project and saves it to your AI config file. Run once to establish persistent design guidelines.

    Also in 19 projects that use this

  • zwy123zwySkill

    normalize

    将用户随意输入的提示词规范化为结构清晰、便于大模型执行的标准化提示词。适用于需要整理、统一提示词格式时调用。

    Also in 19 projects that use this

  • SkillPilotCHSkill

    level-up

    Eine Automatisierung pro Woche finden, scopen, shippen. Output landet als proposed-Eintrag in cadence.md mit konkreten Implementations-Schritten.

    Also in 12 projects that use this

  • ww-w-aiSkill

    pm-discovery

    PM Agent Team - Automated product discovery, strategy, and PRD generation. Runs PM analysis workflow to produce comprehensive PRD before PDCA Plan phase.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +7 more from HK-hub

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 176 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

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

    Playbook gating: read references/audit-playbook.md before executing any route.

    line 36
  2. Distinctive:

    Read, Glob, Grep, Bash.

    line 124

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 176 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

Blueprint Audit

A blueprint that is merely valid can still be wrong: a lane nobody staffs, a step customers experience but no cell records, a fee the journey never shows. The audit runs a fixed roster of checks — each a written interrogation, each executed by a fresh-context auditor — and lands the results as audit_findings rows a human can triage. The audit never fixes anything: it points at cells by key, and rates each finding three ways — severity (how wrong it is), impact (how much fixing it matters to the service) and effort (how much work the fix takes) — so the report can say what to fix first.

Paths resolve against the plugin root (${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} in Claude Code) or the workspace root, per AGENTS.md.

Entry-state detection (do this first)

Entry stateRoute
No workspace / no IRStop. Nothing to audit — that is the ub:map skill's job
IR exists, no DB reachableAudit the IR files directly; audit/findings-report.json is the ledger (playbook §1 route substrate)
Imported blueprint, DB reachableFull run: roster → auditors → dedupe → findings rows
"Audit just scenario X"Same pipeline, cell universe scoped to that scenario's keys
"Dismiss / resolve finding X"Triage route — status change only, playbook §4. Never re-run checks to honor a triage ask
Re-run after editsFull run; supersede semantics below make it safe
"Add a new check"Author a skills/audit/references/check-*.md from the template in playbook §5, then run it alone once before adding it to the roster

Row precedence when the first three could overlap: DB reachability decides (credentials present AND the target answers) — per-scenario draft status never changes the route, only lands as a staleness note in the report.

Playbook gating: read references/audit-playbook.md before executing any route. It carries the run semantics, the fingerprint algorithm, the triage rules, and the check-authoring template.

Hard rules

  • ⚠ REQUIRED — the audit's only writes are audit_findings rows (insert, update, its own check's supersede); humans change status. Fixing what it finds is a separate, confirmed ub:map pass.
  • ⚠ REQUIRED — one fresh-context auditor per check, blind. Each agents/auditor.md dispatch gets ONE check doc and the blueprint export, and never sees other checks' output. Cross-check synthesis happens in the main context after all auditors return.
  • ⚠ REQUIRED — dedupe by fingerprint through audit_tools.py dedupe (playbook §2–§3); dismissed stays dismissed.
  • ⚠ REQUIRED — per-check atomic supersede. A check that completes replaces its own previous open findings in one transaction; a check that fails leaves its previous findings untouched. Never wipe the whole run's findings up front.
  • ⚠ REQUIRED — no verbatim excerpts in a summary. Findings are read by every signed-in account and travel into shared docs. Cite cell keys and titles; never paste evidence text, proposition figures, or interviewee words.
  • ⚠ REQUIRED — confirm the import target before any DB write; references/adapter-contract.md applies unchanged — wrong-project protection. (Vacuous on the no-DB route — no DB write ever happens there, so there is no target to hunt for.)

The pipeline

imported blueprint (or IR files)
  → roster    (enumerate skills/audit/references/check-*.md; skips decided HERE and
               only here — rules in playbook §1.5, every skip reported)
  → export    (one read-only blueprint export the auditors share —
               skills/audit/scripts/audit_tools.py export)
  → dispatch  (one auditor per check, parallel, blind)
  → collect   (findings JSON per check; validate each auditor's output
               against the findings-row shape pinned in agents/auditor.md
               BEFORE any dedupe or `report --apply` — `audit_tools.py
               validate`; a finding missing its severity, impact or effort
               is malformed output = check failed, re-dispatch once, then
               report the check as failed)
  → dedupe    (audit_tools.py dedupe, playbook §3)
  → write     (one run_id for the run; per-check atomic supersede)
  → report    (open findings in priority order — Do first, Plan, Quick
               wins, Later, playbook §3.5 — then per-check counts +
               skipped checks + failed checks; nothing silent)

The check roster

One file per check, skills/audit/references/check-<name>.md. Wave 1 needs only core blueprint data; wave 2 reads the spec columns and skips gracefully — reported, never silent — when they are absent or empty.

The table below is illustrative — the roster is the directory listing (skills/audit/references/check-*.md, enumerated at roster time). A check file that exists runs (or is reported skipped) whether or not a row here mentions it.

WaveCheckAsks
1gap-sweepWhich experienced moments have no cell — empty stretches, dangling dependencies, uncovered steps
1jargon-lintWhich customer-facing cell texts use words the customer would never say
1channel-conflictWhere do simultaneous cells compete for the same actor or channel
1obsolete-sourceWhich cells model a surface or flow the mapped source no longer has (conditional on source access — playbook §1.5)
2kpi-alignmentDo lane KPIs reward what the cells actually do (lane kpis/tools)
2perceived-ownerWhere the recorded owner and the perceived owner diverge (owner pair)
2value-ledgerWhich cells deliver value to nobody, and which audiences receive none (value_props)
2fee-visibilityWhere money changes hands invisibly to the customer journey

Deterministic exit conditions

PhaseExit condition
RosterEvery check-*.md either dispatched or reported skipped-with-reason
CollectEvery dispatched check returned valid findings JSON or is reported failed after one retry
WriteRows for this run_id = deduped findings; open-fingerprint index reports zero conflicts; per-check supersede left no orphaned open findings from prior runs of completed checks
IdempotenceRunning twice on an unchanged blueprint yields zero new rows the second time; a re-run whose only change is a rating updates the open finding instead of adding one
TriageThe named finding's status changed and nothing else did
ReportPrinted checklist: the open findings grouped Do first / Plan / Quick wins / Later (audit_tools.py rank on the file ledger; list_findings already returns that order on the canvas), then per-check found/skipped/failed counts and the run_id — never silent

Agents

  • auditor — one check doc + the blueprint export in; findings JSON out (check, severity info|warn|critical, impact and effort low|medium|high, cell keys, summary). Blind to other checks. Tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash.
  • impact-tracer — its Method is the walk the channel-conflict auditor runs itself when a chain is unclear.

References

Read whenFile
Doing anything in this skillreferences/audit-playbook.md
Executing a specific checkskills/audit/references/check-<name>.md
Anything touching an import targetreferences/adapter-contract.md
Understanding the findings tablereferences/data-model.md
Naming lanes/actors while readingreferences/lane-vocabulary.md
How the same audit behaves on the app canvas (dedupe spaces, canonical dedupe row)references/canvas-adapter.md

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.