audit
Skill0 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Deep architecture audit for any feature or change. Runs failure mode analysis, boundary audit, test gap mapping, contract compliance, data flow tracing, and risk prioritization. Use for major features, critical refactors, or when things feel architecturally wrong.
194 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Laucked-Security/claude-oswetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- sanmidable/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- alegauss/claude-traytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ansvisor/ansvisortheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ai-search-guru/getcito-worlds-first-open-source-aio-aeo-or-geo-tooltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- MammadovEshgin/clean-code-skilltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
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-hubSkilldelight
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-hubSkillteach-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
zwy123zwySkillnormalize
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
SkillPilotCHSkilllevel-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-aiSkillpm-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
Other versions194 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 194
- openai/plugins★ 7.8ksame name
- ccch1mneyyy/dsh-TUI★ 7.2ksame name
- macro-inc/macro★ 6ksame name
- yournextstore/yournextstore★ 5.5ksame name
- gadievron/raptor★ 4ksame name
- alchemy-run/alchemy★ 1.9ksame name
- alchemy-run/alchemy-effect★ 1.9ksame name
- mattmireles/gemma-tuner-multimodal★ 1.5ksame name
- jsmastery-pro/skills★ 1.4ksame name
- nateherkai/AIS-OS★ 1.4ksame name
184 more not listed
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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- promptSkill
- protocol-brainsSkill
- protocol-pinkySkill
- protocolSkill
- review-ai-compatSkill
- review-authSkill
- review-cicdSkill
- review-designSkill
- review-monorepoSkill
- review-prSkill
- reviewSkill
- review-test-strategySkill
- startSkill
- start-uiSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 176 edited versions we read keep these.
13
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
- Distinctive: line 28
Test Gap Mapping ← governance phase 3
- Very specific: line 63
All subsequent steps reference $BASE.
- Very specific: line 65
Use git commands only — do NOT use gh CLI or GitHub API.
- Distinctive: line 106
Read every changed file completely.
- Distinctive: line 197
If the project mirrors a single domain entity across multiple layers (e.g., schema, route contract, service handler, UI module), verify …
- Distinctive: line 208
If the project doesn't use this pattern, skip 2c.
- Distinctive: line 344
Read every file found. Verify the chain holds end to end:
- Distinctive: line 476
If any violations are found, provide two strategies:
- Distinctive: line 482
No architectural changes required
- Distinctive: line 496
Add test for Z because W (addresses V5)
- Distinctive: line 501
No vague "improve the architecture" advice.
- Distinctive: line 502
Every finding must reference a specific file, function, line, or data flow step.
- Distinctive: line 504
If insufficient information to conclude, state: "Insufficient information to conclude".
- Distinctive: line 507
Never recommend disabling or bypassing constraints.
- Distinctive: line 511
After reviewing the output, you may paste the findings into a new prompt:
“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.
Files
Audit — Deep Architecture Audit
Purpose
Comprehensive architecture audit for major features, critical refactors, or suspicious changes.
This is the deep-dive skill — slower and more thorough than /review-pr.
Use when:
- A new feature spans backend + contracts + frontend
- A refactor changes multiple service boundaries
- Something feels architecturally wrong but you can't pinpoint it
- A periodic health check is needed on a specific area
- Changes touch the data flow (DB → service → contract → frontend)
This audit covers governance phases 1, 2, 3, and 5 from docs/AI_GOVERNANCE.md,
plus codebase-specific phases. Phase 4 (AI-Agent Readability Audit) is covered by
/review-ai-compat, not this skill.
- Failure Mode Analysis ← governance phase 1
- Boundary Audit ← governance phase 2
- Test Gap Mapping ← governance phase 3
- Contract Compliance & Data Flow ← codebase-specific
- Adversarial Review ← governance phase 5
- AI Patch Safety Score ← codebase-specific
- Consolidated Audit Report
- Prioritized Action Plan
Expert Panel
You are a review board composed of:
- Failure Mode Analyst — What can go wrong? What are the blast radii?
- Boundary Architect — Domain ownership, dependency direction, contract chain
- Test Strategy Auditor — Coverage gaps, missing edge cases, test isolation
- Data Flow Analyst — Request → route → service → dbhandler → DB → mapper → response
- Contract Compliance Specialist — schema validators (Zod, Pydantic, JSON Schema, etc.), typed route/API contracts, type chain integrity
- Adversarial Reviewer — Assumes the optimistic analysis is wrong. Challenges every "it's fine"
Each expert must speak separately. No repetition between experts.
Instructions
Step 0 — Scope Detection
Detect the base branch (auto: main/master for trunk-based, develop for GitFlow, release if used as integration branch):
BASE=$(git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's@^refs/remotes/origin/@@')
[ -z "$BASE" ] && for b in main master develop release; do
git show-ref --verify --quiet "refs/heads/$b" && BASE="$b" && break
done
[ -z "$BASE" ] && BASE=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)
echo "base=$BASE"All subsequent steps reference $BASE.
Use git commands only — do NOT use gh CLI or GitHub API.
Step 0a — Map the change surface:
# All changed files
git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only
# Change magnitude
git diff $BASE...HEAD --stat | tail -1
git log $BASE..HEAD --onelineStep 0b — Identify affected domains:
# Top-level workspace/dir affected (generic monorepo detection)
git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | awk -F/ '{print $1"/"$2}' | sort -u
# Files per common monorepo root
for root in services packages apps libs crates modules cmd pkg internal; do
count=$(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -c "^$root/" 2>/dev/null)
[ "$count" -gt 0 ] && echo "$root: $count files changed"
done
# Frontend-ish dirs touched
git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '^(apps/|web/|frontend/|client/|ui/)' | head -10
# Backend-ish dirs touched
git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '^(services/|api/|backend/|server/)' | head -10
# Domain markers — non-trivial all-caps IDs in paths (project-specific, may be empty)
git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | tr '/._-' '\n' | grep -xE '[A-Z]{2,8}[0-9]{2,5}' | sort -uStep 0c — Read all changed files in full:
git diff $BASE...HEADRead every changed file completely. Also read the surrounding context — the files they import from and export to. Shallow reading produces shallow audits.
Phase 1 — Failure Mode Analysis
For each changed component (service, package, route, handler), identify failure modes.
Step 1a — Gather error handling evidence:
# Error handling patterns across changed files (multi-language)
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|rb|java|cs|kt)$'); do
[ -f "$file" ] && echo "=== $file ===" && grep -nE "throw|catch|raise|except|panic|recover|Result<|Error\(" "$file"
done
# HTTP status / response codes in changed files
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|rb|java|cs|kt)$'); do
[ -f "$file" ] && grep -nE "StatusCodes\.|status\(|HTTP_|StatusBadRequest|StatusOK" "$file"
done
# Async/concurrency patterns
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|rb|java|cs|kt)$'); do
[ -f "$file" ] && grep -nE "async |await |\.then|\.catch|Promise|go func|spawn|tokio::|asyncio" "$file"
doneStep 1b — For each component, produce a failure mode table:
| Component | Failure Mode | Trigger | Impact | Current Handling | Adequate? |
| name | what fails | how it happens | what breaks | how it's handled | Yes/No |
Categories to check:
- Input validation failures — malformed requests, missing fields, type mismatches
- DB failures — connection loss, query timeout, constraint violation, deadlock
- Auth failures — expired token, missing session, insufficient permissions
- Contract violations — response doesn't match schema, missing fields
- Concurrency issues — race conditions, stale reads, double writes
- Resource exhaustion — memory, connection pool, file handles
- External service failures — downstream timeouts, network issues
Phase 2 — Boundary Audit
Step 2a — Verify the dependency chain for affected code:
# Map imports/uses for each changed file (multi-language)
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|rb|java|cs|kt)$'); do
[ -f "$file" ] && echo "=== $file ===" && grep -nE "^import |^from |^use |require\(" "$file"
done
# Cross-package imports (any npm scope, workspace path, or absolute module path)
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|rb)$'); do
[ -f "$file" ] && grep -nE "from '@[^/]+/|from '(services|packages|apps|libs)/|from \"github\.com/" "$file" | sed "s|^|$file:|"
done
# Cross-workspace imports (file importing from a different top-level workspace)
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '^[^/]+/[^/]+/.*\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs)$'); do
workspace=$(echo "$file" | cut -d/ -f1-2)
[ -f "$file" ] && grep -nE "^import |^from |^use |require\(" "$file" | grep -v "$workspace"
doneStep 2b — Verify the allowed dependency flow:
Identify the project's intended dependency direction. Look for:
package.jsonworkspaces (npm/yarn/pnpm) or rootpnpm-workspace.yamlnx.json/project.json(Nx workspace boundaries)Cargo.toml[workspace](Rust)go.work(Go workspaces)- Architecture docs (
docs/ARCHITECTURE.md,README.md, ADRs)
Common pattern:
shared utilities ← consumed by everyone
shared contracts ← consumed by everyone
domain libs ← consumed by services + apps
DB / data access ← consumed by services only
↓
services/api (consume libs, never each other)
↓
apps/* (web, cli) (consume libs + contracts, never services directly)For every import found in Step 2a, verify it follows the project's intended flow. Flag every violation with file, line, and the illegal import. If the flow isn't documented anywhere, flag that — "no documented dependency direction" is itself a finding.
Step 2c — Domain ownership check:
If the project mirrors a single domain entity across multiple layers (e.g., schema, route contract, service handler, UI module), verify every affected domain marker has a directory/file in each expected layer.
# Generic domain mirror discovery — adapt to project's layer roots
markers=$(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | tr '/._-' '\n' | grep -xE '[A-Z]{2,8}[0-9]{2,5}' | sort -u)
for marker in $markers; do
echo "=== $marker ==="
find . -type d -iname "$marker" -not -path '*/node_modules/*' -not -path '*/.git/*' 2>/dev/null
doneIf the project doesn't use this pattern, skip 2c.
Phase 3 — Test Gap Mapping
Step 3a — Inventory tests for affected code:
# Test files per affected workspace (workspace = top-2 path segments)
for ws in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '^[^/]+/[^/]+/' | awk -F/ '{print $1"/"$2}' | sort -u); do
echo "=== $ws ==="
find "$ws" -type f \( \
-name "*.test.*" -o -name "*.spec.*" \
-o -name "*_test.go" -o -name "*_test.py" -o -name "test_*.py" \
-o -name "*Test.kt" -o -name "*Test.java" -o -name "*Tests.cs" -o -name "*_spec.rb" \
\) -not -path '*/node_modules/*' 2>/dev/null | sort
doneStep 3b — Map source files to test files:
# For every changed source file, find its test (multi-language)
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|rb|java|kt|cs)$' | grep -vE '\.(test|spec)\.|_test\.|/test_|\.tests?\.'); do
[ -f "$file" ] || continue
base=$(basename "$file" | sed -E 's/\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|rb|java|kt|cs)$//')
workspace=$(echo "$file" | cut -d/ -f1-2)
testfile=$(find "$workspace" -type f \( \
-name "${base}.test.*" -o -name "${base}.spec.*" \
-o -name "${base}_test.go" -o -name "${base}_test.py" -o -name "test_${base}.py" \
-o -name "${base}Test.kt" -o -name "${base}Test.java" -o -name "${base}Tests.cs" -o -name "${base}_spec.rb" \
\) -not -path '*/node_modules/*' 2>/dev/null | head -1)
[ -n "$testfile" ] && echo "✅ $file → $testfile" || echo "❌ $file → NO TEST"
doneStep 3c — Classify untested code by risk:
For every untested file found in Step 3b, classify:
| File | Type | Risk Level | Why |
| path | route/handler/service/data-access/util/model | 🚨/⚠️/✅ | what could go wrong untested |
Risk classification:
- 🚨 HIGH — data access (SQL/query correctness), auth/authz logic, payment or money-handling paths, security-critical code
- ⚠️ MEDIUM — service/business logic, route handlers (input validation), data mappers/transformers, integration glue
- ✅ LOW — utilities, constants, types, pure functions with trivial logic
Step 3d — Check test quality indicators:
# Mock density (over-mocking = false confidence)
for ws in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '^[^/]+/[^/]+/' | awk -F/ '{print $1"/"$2}' | sort -u); do
echo "=== $ws ==="
count=$(grep -rnE "vi\.(mock|fn|spyOn)|jest\.(mock|fn|spyOn)|sinon\.|mock\.patch|MagicMock|@patch|gomock|mock\.New|@Mock|mockito|allow\(|instance_double" "$ws" \
--include="*.test.*" --include="*.spec.*" --include="*_test.go" --include="*_test.py" --include="test_*.py" --include="*Test.kt" --include="*Test.java" --include="*Tests.cs" --include="*_spec.rb" \
--exclude-dir=node_modules 2>/dev/null | wc -l)
echo "Mock count: $count"
done
# Assertion density (low assertions = weak tests)
for ws in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '^[^/]+/[^/]+/' | awk -F/ '{print $1"/"$2}' | sort -u); do
echo "=== $ws ==="
asserts=$(grep -rnE "expect\(|assert |assertEquals|assertThat|assert_equal|require\." "$ws" \
--include="*.test.*" --include="*.spec.*" --include="*_test.go" --include="*_test.py" --include="test_*.py" --include="*Test.kt" --include="*Test.java" --include="*Tests.cs" --include="*_spec.rb" \
--exclude-dir=node_modules 2>/dev/null | wc -l)
echo "Assertions: $asserts"
done
# Shared state across tests (flakiness risk)
for ws in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E '^[^/]+/[^/]+/' | awk -F/ '{print $1"/"$2}' | sort -u); do
grep -rnE "beforeAll|afterAll|globalSetup|@BeforeAll|@AfterAll|setUp|tearDown|setup_module|TestMain" "$ws" \
--include="*.test.*" --include="*.spec.*" --include="*_test.go" --include="*_test.py" --include="test_*.py" --include="*Test.kt" --include="*Test.java" --include="*Tests.cs" --include="*_spec.rb" \
--exclude-dir=node_modules 2>/dev/null
donePhase 4 — Contract Compliance & Data Flow
Phase 4 enforces that data contracts hold across every layer they cross — from the source-of-truth schema all the way to the UI that renders the data.
Configure once per project. Edit the path variables at the top of Step 4a
to match your repo layout. * wildcards are honored.
Step 4a — Trace the full contract chain for affected markers:
# === EDIT FOR YOUR PROJECT =========================================
SCHEMA_DIR="packages/contracts/src/schemas"
ROUTE_CONTRACT_DIR="packages/contracts/src/routes"
SERVICE_DIR="services/*/src"
DB_HANDLER_SUBPATH="dbhandlers"
APP_DIR="apps/*/src"
API_CLIENT_SUBPATH="api"
UI_COMPONENT_SUBPATH="components"
MARKER_REGEX='[A-Z]{2,8}[0-9]{2,5}'
# ===================================================================
markers=$(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only \
| tr '/._-' '\n' | grep -xiE "$MARKER_REGEX" | sort -u)
for marker in $markers; do
upper=$(echo "$marker" | tr '[:lower:]' '[:upper:]')
lower=$(echo "$marker" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]')
echo "=== Marker: $upper ==="
echo "-- 1. Schema (source of truth) --"
find . -path "*$SCHEMA_DIR/*$lower*" -name "*.ts" \
-not -path '*/node_modules/*' 2>/dev/null
echo "-- 2. Route contract --"
find . -path "*$ROUTE_CONTRACT_DIR/*$lower*" -name "*.ts" \
-not -path '*/node_modules/*' 2>/dev/null
echo "-- 3. Service route handler --"
find . -path "*$SERVICE_DIR/$upper/*" \( -name "*.route.ts" -o -name "*.routes.ts" \) \
-not -path '*/node_modules/*' 2>/dev/null
echo "-- 4. DB handler --"
find . -path "*$SERVICE_DIR/$upper/$DB_HANDLER_SUBPATH/*" -name "*.ts" \
-not -path '*/node_modules/*' 2>/dev/null
echo "-- 5. API client (consumer side) --"
find . -path "*$APP_DIR/$API_CLIENT_SUBPATH/*" \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.tsx" \) \
-not -path '*/node_modules/*' 2>/dev/null \
| xargs grep -l -iE "$marker" 2>/dev/null
echo "-- 6. UI component (consumer side) --"
find . -path "*$APP_DIR/$UI_COMPONENT_SUBPATH/*" -iname "*$marker*" \
-not -path '*/node_modules/*' 2>/dev/null
doneRead every file found. Verify the chain holds end to end:
Schema type → route contract request/response → service handler input/output → DB query → row mapper → HTTP response → API client return type → UI prop type.
Step 4b — Check for contract breaks at each layer root:
for root in "$SCHEMA_DIR" "$ROUTE_CONTRACT_DIR" "$SERVICE_DIR" "$APP_DIR"; do
echo "=== Diff in $root ==="
git diff $BASE...HEAD -- "$root"
done
# Removed / changed schema fields
git diff $BASE...HEAD -- "$SCHEMA_DIR" | grep -E "^[-+].*z\." | head -30
# Service response shape changes
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "${SERVICE_DIR//\*/.*}.*\.route\.ts$"); do
[ -f "$file" ] && echo "=== $file ===" && grep -n "return\|body:" "$file"
done
# Consumer-side: API client return-type changes
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "${APP_DIR//\*/.*}/$API_CLIENT_SUBPATH/.*\.tsx?$"); do
[ -f "$file" ] && echo "=== $file ===" && grep -n "type \|interface \|return " "$file"
doneFlag any removed/changed field that downstream layers still reference — backend and frontend.
Step 4c — Data flow verification:
For each new or changed route, trace the full chain end to end:
- Request → which validator/schema runs?
- Route handler → calls correct service function?
- Service → orchestrates correctly? Pure logic vs side effects?
- DB handler → query correctness? Parameters bound safely?
- Mapper → DB row → contract type transform correct?
- HTTP response → matches the declared schema?
- API client → response type matches contract? Error handling?
- UI component → prop types match API client return? Loading/error states?
Flag any break in the chain — backend and consumer side.
Phase 5 — Adversarial Review
This phase assumes the optimistic analysis from Phases 1-4 is wrong.
Step 5a — Challenge every "it's fine":
For each finding rated as "Adequate" or "No issues" in Phases 1-4, ask:
- What assumption am I making?
- What input would violate that assumption?
- What edge case did I not consider?
- What happens under load?
- What happens during partial deployment (old + new versions coexisting)?
Step 5b — Look for hidden assumptions:
EXTS='\.(ts|tsx|js|jsx|py|go|rs|rb|java|cs|kt|swift)$'
# Hardcoded values that look like they should be configurable
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "$EXTS"); do
[ -f "$file" ] && grep -nE "= [0-9]+|= '[^']{10,}'|= \"[^\"]{10,}\"" "$file" | head -5 && echo "--- $file ---"
done
# Type assertions / unsafe casts (multi-language)
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "$EXTS"); do
[ -f "$file" ] && grep -nE "as [A-Z]|!|!!|\.\([A-Z][a-zA-Z]+\)|unwrap\(\)|expect\(" "$file" | grep -v "!==\|!=" | head -5 && echo "--- $file ---"
done
# Null/undefined silencers (optional chaining, default coalescing)
for file in $(git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only | grep -E "$EXTS"); do
[ -f "$file" ] && grep -nE "\?\.|\?\?|\.unwrap_or|\.getOrElse|\?:" "$file" | head -5 && echo "--- $file ---"
doneStep 5c — Worst-case scenario analysis:
For the most critical changed component, answer:
- What is the worst thing that can happen if this code has a bug?
- What data could be corrupted?
- What user-facing impact would occur?
- How would we detect it?
- How would we recover?
Phase 6 — AI Patch Safety Score
Score the overall change 1-10 for AI-modifiability. Do not skip any dimension:
| Dimension | Score (1-10) | Justification |
| Local understandability | Can an agent reason about each file without reading 5 others? | |
| State explicitness | Is all state visible and traceable? | |
| Control flow simplicity | Can the execution path be followed linearly? | |
| Refactor safety | What would break during automated refactor? | |
| Tribal knowledge dependency | Does understanding require unwritten context? |
Scoring guide:
- 7-10 — Safe for agents. No action needed.
- 4-6 — Flag for review. Improvements recommended.
- 1-3 — Redesign required. Not safe for agent modification.
Calculate an overall average score.
Phase 7 — Consolidated Audit Report
Violation Summary:
| # | Violation | Severity | Phase | File | Details |
| V1 | type | 🔴 HIGH / 🟡 MEDIUM / 🔵 LOW / ℹ️ INFO | phase | path | what and why |
Architecture Health Assessment:
| Dimension | Status | Notes |
| Failure mode coverage | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Boundary integrity | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Test coverage | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Contract compliance | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Data flow integrity | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| Adversarial resilience | ✅/⚠️/❌ | |
| AI Patch Safety Score | X/10 |
Phase 8 — Prioritized Action Plan
If any violations are found, provide two strategies:
Minimal Safe Fix (short term, low disruption):
- Specific changes ordered by risk reduction
- Each fix must reference the exact violation it addresses
- No architectural changes required
Structural Redesign (if architecture is systemically weak):
- Architectural changes to address root causes
- Contract chain repairs
- Test strategy additions
- Data flow corrections
Prioritize by: Blast radius × Likelihood of failure × Recovery time
Provide a concrete ordered list:
- Fix X because Y (addresses V1, V3)
- Add test for Z because W (addresses V5)
- etc.
Output Constraints
- No vague "improve the architecture" advice.
- Every finding must reference a specific file, function, line, or data flow step.
- Separate confirmed violations from assumptions from unknowns.
- If insufficient information to conclude, state: "Insufficient information to conclude".
- This audit measures architectural soundness — not style or formatting.
- The Adversarial Review (Phase 5) must explicitly challenge the findings from Phases 1-4.
- Never recommend disabling or bypassing constraints.
Optional: Self-Correction (Manual)
After reviewing the output, you may paste the findings into a new prompt:
"Here are the findings from my architecture audit. Which of these might be incorrect due to missing context? What additional data would increase confidence?"
IMPORTANT: This step must be human-initiated — never auto-dismiss findings. The human decides what to act on.
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.

