agentleFS
LinardsLiepenieksLinardsLiepenieks/honecode/skills/audit-with-subagents/SKILL.md

audit-with-subagents

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Audits a targeted area of code with an agent team: one teammate per region, each probing its integration seams and the neighboring files it imports and is imported by, then cross-examining each other's findings before they're synthesized into categories for the user to act on. Defaults to the current uncommitted changes when no target is named. Use when the user wants to pressure-test a change, audit a refactor, or says "audit" or "send out subagents".

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    Distinctive · estimate

    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:

    If agent teams aren't enabled (CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS), fall back to parallel subagents in a single message, with the same …

    line 18

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

Audit with an agent team

Audit whatever the user names: a change, file, feature, or refactor. If they name no target, audit the current uncommitted changes.

Treat the area under audit as an import graph: the files in scope, plus (one hop out) the neighboring files they import or that import them. Split it into connected subgraphs, one per teammate, so each traces its own edges and confirms data flows cleanly across every boundary, not just where it lands. Aim for 3–5 teammates; read a subgraph directly instead of spawning when it's small enough to verify by eye.

Spawn an agent team and, in the spawn instruction, tell the lead to:

  • give each teammate a self-contained brief: the target, the subgraph it owns, and the neighboring files to trace into (teammates don't inherit this conversation, so spell out the change);
  • have each critique adversarially (hunt for what breaks, don't rubber-stamp) and report findings as category · severity · concrete failure scenario;
  • have teammates message each other to challenge findings before reporting, like a scientific debate. A finding that survives peer cross-examination is credible; one that doesn't is dropped.

If agent teams aren't enabled (CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS), fall back to parallel subagents in a single message, with the same briefs, minus the cross-examination.

Collect the surviving audits and judge what actually holds. You are the final filter, not a pass-through.

Presenting the output: mandatory

Group the surviving findings into categories (e.g. reliability, type/SoC consolidation, config cleanup, test coverage, dead code) and present them with the AskUserQuestion tool as a multi-select question, one option per category, labeled with its severity, described by what acting on it entails. Do not apply anything until the user has chosen.

  • Lead with a tight written synthesis (verdict + per-category findings) so the choice is informed, not blind.
  • Set multiSelect: true; order options by severity, most important first, appending "(Recommended)" where apt.
  • Act on exactly the selected categories and skip the rest. Even when the findings look obvious, the user decides scope.

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.