audit-code
Skill1 starsChanged 6 months agoBSD-3-ClauseView on GitHub
Audit computational artifacts against design principles
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- danielvm-git/bigpowerstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- Evan-Daruwalla/claude-skill-suitetheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- NVIDIA/elementstheir own version, first seen Sep 18, 2026
- Swader/agent-skills-audittheir own version, first seen Sep 12, 2026
- tomharris/engineer-agenttheir own version, first seen Jul 22, 2026
- amatray/claude-skills-publictheir own version, first seen Jul 11, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- danielvm-git/bigpowers★ 288same name
- NVIDIA/elements★ 115same name
- Swader/agent-skills-audit★ 19same name
- amatray/claude-skills-public★ 9same name
- ItsNishi/AI-Agent-Security★ 4same name
- jasonmichaelbell78-creator/sonash-v0★ 2same name
- Evan-Daruwalla/claude-skill-suite★ 0same name
- tomharris/engineer-agent★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- audit-holisticSkill
- engineering-mentorSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
14
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Every computational artifact exists at a level:
- Distinctive: line 25
No impossible states exist
- Distinctive: line 34
Working code is not enough: - Must be maintainable, not just functional.
- Distinctive: line 37
Parsimony: - Prefer the simplest solution that works.
- Distinctive: line 55
Design twice: - Consider alternatives. The first design is rarely optimal.
- Distinctive: line 133
Lints required: - Run project linters before considering done
- Distinctive: line 135
No hacks: - If a feature requires a hack, workaround, or monkey patch, stop.
- Distinctive: line 136
No partial solutions: - Do not commit code that could break things later or that only works coincidentally.
- Distinctive: line 146
Apply design principles: Check complexity, module depth, information hiding
- Distinctive: line 172
After every audit, explicitly flag any finding that represents a fragile hack or a partial solution — even if it is currently passing tests.
- Distinctive: line 198
Verify no "impossible" states
- Distinctive: line 206
Verify completeness (all transitions handled)
- Distinctive: line 207
Verify reachability (no orphaned states)
- Distinctive: line 208
Verify safety (invalid states never reached)
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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.
Files
Audit code as a computational artifact: verify it correctly implements its specification at the appropriate abstraction level.
Foundations
Levels of Abstraction
Every computational artifact exists at a level:
- Intention - What problem are we solving?
- Specification - What should the artifact do?
- Implementation - How does it actually work?
Audit at the right level. Code should correctly implement its specification, not redefine it.
Correctness
A computational artifact is correct when:
- Implementation matches specification
- Specification fulfills intention
- No impossible states exist
Design Principles
Complexity
- Complexity is incremental - Small complexities compound. Eliminate trivial complexity early.
- Working code is not enough - Must be maintainable, not just functional.
- No technical debt - Continuously invest in design.
- Push complexity down - Hide complexity in internal modules, not at boundaries.
- Parsimony - Prefer the simplest solution that works. Do not add elements not strictly necessary. A parsimonious solution matches the specification exactly—it does not solve more than required by the specification.
- Elegance - The right solution. Clear, simple, no unnecessary parts. Elegant code is: transparent (obvious intent), correct (works for all cases), explanatory (documents itself), uniform (consistent patterns), and generic (general-purpose over special-purpose).
Modules
- Deep modules - Small interface, complete implementation. Prefer few deep modules over many shallow ones.
- Information hiding - Encapsulate design decisions. Users should not need to know how internals work.
- General-purpose > Special-purpose - More general interfaces are simpler and deeper. Avoid over-specialization.
- Layers with different abstractions - Each layer provides a distinct abstraction. Don't mix levels.
- Separate general from specific - Specialize without polluting.
Interface Design
- Simple interface - Prioritize common use case. It is more important to have a simple interface than a simple implementation.
- Define errors out of existence - Validate first, don't handle after. Make invalid states unrepresentable.
Process
- Design twice - Consider alternatives. The first design is rarely optimal.
- Strategic > Tactical - Invest in design, not just features. Short-term speed leads to long-term debt.
Code Quality
Readability
- Descriptive, consistent names
- Small functions (single responsibility)
- No duplication (DRY)
- No unnecessary comments
- Code in English
- Parsimonious - No unnecessary code or abstraction
- Elegant - Transparent, correct, explanatory, uniform, generic
Architecture
- Separation of concerns
- Appropriate abstractions
- Explicit dependencies
- No unnecessary coupling
Type Safety
- Explicit type annotations in public APIs
- No
anyorunknownwithout justification - Generics used correctly
- Type-safe data boundaries
- Ambiguous types eliminated
Correctness Verification
Invariants
- Object creation: Cannot exist in invalid state
- State transition: Maintains consistency
- Deletion: No orphaned records
- Query: Always returns consistent data
Preconditions & Postconditions
- Preconditions validated before operation
- Postconditions guaranteed after operation
- Impossible states unrepresentable
Properties
- Totality - Function handles all valid inputs
- Determinism - Same input → same output
- Atomicity - Operations are all-or-nothing
- Consistency - Data never in invalid state
Security & Performance
Security
- Input validation
- No injection vulnerabilities
- No hardcoded secrets
- No magic numbers (use constants)
Performance
- No N+1 queries (use eager loading)
- No queries in loops (use bulk operations)
- Adequate indexes where needed
Project Rules
- English naming - Functions, variables, classes in English
- Lints required - Run project linters before considering done
- No lint disables - Fix root cause, don't suppress
- No hacks - If a feature requires a hack, workaround, or monkey patch, stop. Fix the root cause properly or be honest that the task cannot be completed without compromising quality.
- No partial solutions - Do not commit code that could break things later or that only works coincidentally.
- No backwards compatibility bias - Fix poorly designed APIs or behaviors properly rather than preserving a flawed design. Correctness over compatibility.
Execution
- Identify modified files:
git diff --name-only - Determine abstraction level: Is this spec, implementation, or intent?
- Verify correctness: Does code at this level match level above?
- Apply design principles: Check complexity, module depth, information hiding
- Run linters: Project-specific commands
- Run type checker:
mypy,tsc --noEmit, etc. - Report findings: Classify by severity
Severity
| Level | Description |
| 🔴 Critical | Security vulnerability, data loss, breakage, incorrect results, hack or workaround introduced |
| 🟠 High | Performance issue, maintainability blocker, type unsafety |
| 🟡 Medium | Code smell, improvement opportunity |
| 🟢 Low | Style preference, nitpick |
Output Format
[🔴/🟠/🟡/🟢] <file>:<line>
- Problem: ...
- Suggestion: ...After every audit, explicitly flag any finding that represents a fragile hack or a partial solution — even if it is currently passing tests.
Red Flags
Identify these indicators of poor design:
- Change amplification - Simple change requires modifications in many places
- Cognitive load - Developer needs to know too much to make changes
- Obscurity - Important information not obvious
- Shallow modules - Interface as complex as implementation
- Information leakage - Design decisions exposed at module boundary
- Special-purpose classes - Over-specialized, hard to reuse
- Redundant code - Duplication that could be abstracted
- Hacks & workarounds - Local fixes that paper over deeper issues instead of addressing the root cause
- Partial solutions - Incomplete implementations that pass happy-path but break edge cases
- Coincidental correctness - Code that works for the wrong reasons; fragile under change
Verification Techniques
Data Flow Analysis
- Trace input → output
- Verify no "impossible" states
- Confirm exceptions don't break invariants
State Machine Analysis
For code handling state transitions:
- Identify valid states
- Diagram transitions
- Verify completeness (all transitions handled)
- Verify reachability (no orphaned states)
- Verify safety (invalid states never reached)
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
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.

