repo-audit
Skill10 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Discover user-facing features, workflows, routes, APIs, configs, and tests in a codebase by evidence, not guesses. Use to turn an unfamiliar or under-documented repo into an inventory of what actually ships. Returns features with code evidence, undocumented screens/routes/workflows, APIs and state transitions needing tests, the highest-risk feature, and the first test suite to write.
23 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- idaibin/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- TheVeller/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- ekajaya740/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- 0xUrsanomics/utopia-ostheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- DentalEdge-Solutions/claude_codetheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- zebbern/claude-code-guidetheir own version, first seen Oct 30, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use code-review.
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.
GoogleSkillcode-review
Adversarial systems, concurrency, memory-model, and architecture code review protocol. Use this skill whenever asked to review code, PRs, diffs, or branches in Filament.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions23 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 23
- zebbern/claude-code-guide★ 4.7ksame name
- Kanevry/session-orchestrator★ 53same name
- iuliandita/skills★ 11same name
- sunitghub/canon-skills★ 9same name
- idaibin/skills★ 6same name
- my-chiefmind/ai-maestro★ 6same name
- nikkogibler/cabinet★ 4same name
- TheVeller/claude-skills★ 4same name
- conorbronsdon/repo-audit★ 3same name
- 0xUrsanomics/utopia-os★ 2same name
13 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 repository24 other files it gives its agents.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 19 edited versions we read keep these.
1
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 20
Do not infer a feature you cannot point to in code.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 19 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
/ratchet:repo-audit — evidence-based feature discovery
A codebase is a claim about what it does. This command verifies the claim by evidence. It discovers user-facing features from the code itself — not from the README, not from memory — and marks the gaps between what exists and what is tested.
Step 0 — Load state and ground truth
ratchet snapshot repoThen read for real: routes, entrypoints, handlers, UI components, API definitions, config, and existing tests. Use Grep/Glob to find route tables, exported handlers, and test files. Do not infer a feature you cannot point to in code.
Procedure
For each user-facing feature discovered by evidence, capture:
- Feature ID and name
- User story — who does what, and why
- Evidence in code — file:line where it lives
- Expected behavior — what it should do
- Edge cases — the inputs that stress it
- Test cases — what would verify it
- Dependencies — what it relies on
- Known assumptions — what it takes for granted
- Current risk level — critical / high / medium / low
Then identify the gaps:
- Screens / routes / workflows not yet documented.
- APIs or state transitions that need tests.
- The highest-risk feature — most user-facing × least tested.
- The first test suite to write.
- The smallest fix likely to improve user trust.
Rules
- Do not declare coverage complete unless every route, screen, workflow, and API interaction has evidence. Missing evidence is a finding, not a rounding error.
- A feature with no test is a defect waiting to happen — record it.
Output contract
Return the feature inventory as a table, then the five gap findings. Then serialize:
ratchet ledger create
ratchet ledger update features '{"name":"...","area":"...","routes":"...","status":"discovered"}'
ratchet defect add '{"severity":"high","summary":"<highest-risk feature> has no test coverage"}'Next: /ratchet:qa-ledger to formalize the canonical ledger, then /ratchet:verify.
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.

