foundation-audit
Skill10 starsChanged 36 days agoMITView on GitHub
Compare design tokens in code against foundation docs and optionally Figma variables to detect drift (undocumented tokens, tokens missing in code, value mismatches). Use when the design system has evolved and foundations need a sync check. Do not use when no foundation docs exist (run design-bootstrap first).
In this repository98 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- a11y-auditSkill
- ai-feature-eval-harnessSkill
- api-contract-reviewSkill
- api-runtime-verifySkill
- apply-sweep-triageSkill
- approve-planSkill
- approve-proposedSkill
- app-runtime-verifySkill
- atom-audit-fleetSkill
- atom-auditSkill
- autonomous-boardSkill
- autonomous-readinessSkill
- autonomous-runSkill
- backend-system-designSkill
- branch-commitSkill
- capture-observationSkill
- capture-referencesSkill
- code-context-mapSkill
- code-locateSkill
- color-contrast-architectSkill
- compact-task-memorySkill
- component-specSkill
- contract-signoffSkill
- db-context-postgresSkill
- db-context-supabaseSkill
- decision-interviewSkill
- delivery-assetSkill
- design-bootstrapSkill
- design-spec-reviewSkill
- direction-adjustSkill
- external-research-fleetSkill
- external-researchSkill
- extract-foundations-from-screensSkill
- feature-library-scout-fleetSkill
- feature-library-scoutSkill
- frontend-architecture-reviewSkill
- frontend-system-designSkill
- godot-runtime-verifySkill
- godot-scene-planSkill
- graphql-contract-reviewSkill
- harvest-session-learningsSkill
- image-to-specSkill
- impact-analysisSkill
- implement-approved-sliceSkill
- implementation-planSkill
- implement-fleetSkill
- implement-slice-complementSkill
- im-stuckSkill
- incident-triageSkill
- invariants-and-non-goalsSkill
- inventory-snapshotSkill
- journey-mapSkill
- jtbd-switch-interviewerSkill
- mcp-server-vetSkill
- migration-safety-stewardSkill
- pattern-docSkill
- performance-budgetSkill
- portfolio-reviewSkill
- post-deploy-verifierSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 24
Read these sections in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md first:
- Distinctive: line 32
Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role.
- Very specific: line 53
Step 4: (Optional) Compare vs Figma: If a Figma URL is provided, call get_variable_defs and build a third flat list.
- Very specific: line 86
Follow ## Global output contract in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md for APPLIED / PROPOSED / SKIP rules.
- Distinctive: line 94
All tokens from code AND docs are accounted for in the comparison.
- Distinctive: line 96
If Figma was included: 3-way comparison is complete.
- Distinctive: line 97
If everything is in sync, health says so clearly.
- Very specific: line 98
Before declaring this output done, confirm it satisfies the shared Definition of done (command outputs) and Gate conditions in …
- Distinctive: line 101
Every finding is grounded in actual code and doc values, not assumptions.
≈ “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.
Files
Act as a design system auditor checking token-level consistency between documentation, code, and Figma.
Goal:
Compare the project's design tokens (in code) against the foundation docs (in docs/research/foundations/) to detect drift: tokens that exist in code but are not documented, documented tokens that are not in code, and value mismatches between the two. Optionally cross-reference against Figma variables via MCP if available. Produce a drift report.
Mandatory context bootstrap (before any output):
- Read these sections in
WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.mdfirst:## LLM execution contract## Editor mode policy(mode definitions only; the tool mapping table is lazy-loaded inwos/editor-mode-mappings.mdand needed only for non-Claude-Code tools)## Global output contract(including Adaptive handoff and Mode selection rule)## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails
- Bootstrap tiers: the light-weight commands (
branch-commit,what-next,where-we-at,slice-closure,compact-task-memory) plus the high-frequencyimplement-approved-sliceandsync-task-state(v3 wave1 item D) read the four sections above with two subsections of## Cross-cutting workflow guardrailsskipped:### External web access (centralized)and### Sequencing heuristics (by phase). Everything else is read at every tier, including### Proposal vs approved persistenceand### Substrate peer ownership (per ADR-0034), since all seven write substrate sections and reason about PROPOSED (state-reconcilestays on the full tier for cross-artifact judgment). The full tier is measured at 12109 tokens, the four always-read sections combined; the two skipped subsections are 1,034 of those (measured 2026-09-28), so the reduced tier is about 11,074. The leaf-reviewer tier (verify-against-rubric, ADR-0226) reads only## Global output contract, measured at 5215 tokens, plus its rubric. - Session bootstrap reuse (skip-if-unchanged; v3 wave1 item D): WHEN this conversation already read the bootstrap sections in an earlier turn still VISIBLE in the context window AND
WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.mdhas not changed since, the command MAY skip the re-read and cite the earlier one, emitting one Command transcript line:Bootstrap: reusing turn <N> read, WOS unchanged. Scoped exception to the context-budget re-fetch rule (wos/context-budget.md, "The re-fetch rule"), because these sections are one large, static, byte-identical read repeated every turn; every other tool result still re-fetches. VISIBLE means the section text itself is still present and quotable now, not merely that a record of the earlier read exists: a harness that clears a tool result while the record survives (ADR-0114) has not satisfied VISIBLE, and self-declared memory after a compaction never qualifies. A stateless-per-turn harness is excluded. The transcript line is mandatory; a silent skip is invalid output. - Resolving the spec and
wos/<topic>.md: canonical repository FIRST. Otherwise use active-adapter docs:~/.claude/workflow-docs(CLAUDE_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR),~/.cursor/workflow-docs(WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR; project.cursor/workflow-docson project installs),~/.codex/workflow-docs(CODEX_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR), or<kimi-home>/workflow-docs(KIMI_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR). Nonempty overrides win. Kimi home:KIMI_CODE_HOME, else existing~/.kimi-code, else existing~/.kimi, default~/.kimi-code. Use one root for both paths; try other adapters if absent or unknown. Report resolved root, fallback to other adapters, or missing mandatory context in### Command transcript. Installed snapshots refresh and prune retired topics only on sync. - Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role.
- Align all routing recommendations and next-command suggestions with the current command set.
- Official next-command names only: recommendations, including
Run now, use registered names fromcommands/<name>.mdorcommands/<name>/SKILL.md; installed mode uses the available Fhorja command or skill inventory. No invented aliases.Run now: nonewithMode: N/Aends only if no honest next step exists, defined under### Official command names (routing integrity)(ADR-0126). Required inputs: - project workspace path
- path to token files (
packages/design-system/src/tokens/ortokens/*.json) - path to foundation docs (
docs/research/foundations/) - optional: Figma file URL (for 3-way comparison: Figma vs docs vs code)
Task repository files to update:
- TASK_STATE.md (add audit summary)
Operating rules:
- Handoff: end with the adaptive
### Handoffblock perWORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md## Global output contract(Mode A compact or Mode B full). - Step 1: Read token files. Parse all token definitions from the code (whether .ts exports or DTCG JSON). Build a flat list:
category.group.name = value. - Step 2: Read foundation docs. Parse all
## Tokenstables from foundation docs. Build a flat list:category.group.name = value. - Step 3: Compare code vs docs.
- In code, not in docs: token exists in code but is not documented. Flag as
undocumented. - In docs, not in code: token is documented but missing from code. Flag as
unimplemented. - Value mismatch: token exists in both but values differ. Flag as
drift. - Name mismatch: similar token exists under a different name (fuzzy match). Flag as
possible rename.
- In code, not in docs: token exists in code but is not documented. Flag as
- Step 4: (Optional) Compare vs Figma. If a Figma URL is provided, call
get_variable_defsand build a third flat list. Cross-reference all three sources. Flag tokens that are in Figma but not in code, in code but not in Figma, or with value mismatches. - Step 5: Generate drift report. Categorize findings by foundation (color, typography, spacing, etc.) and severity:
- P1: value mismatch (code shows different value than docs or Figma; visual inconsistency)
- P2: undocumented token (works but not governed) or unimplemented token (documented but not available)
- Step 6: Suggest fixes. For each finding, recommend: update the doc, update the code, or create an OPEN_QUESTIONS entry if the correct value is unclear.
Required output:
- Summary: N tokens in code, M tokens in docs, K tokens in Figma (if checked)
- Drift findings (undocumented, unimplemented, value mismatch, possible rename)
- Per-foundation breakdown (color: X findings, spacing: Y findings, etc.)
- Overall health: in-sync / minor drift / significant drift
- Recommended next command
Claim grounding (active epistemic humility)
Claim grounding (active epistemic humility). This block governs what you may assert and how you record it. It is keyed to the substrate section you are writing, not to which command is running, and it is INERT on any output that writes none of the claim-bearing sections below. Full contract and rationale: wos/active-epistemic-humility.md.
- When this applies. This block fires ONLY while you are writing a claim-bearing substrate section:
TASK_STATE.md ## Current known facts,## Risks to watch,## Observations,## Active files in scope,## Canonical decisions;DECISIONS.md ## Locked decisions;IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md ## Current gaps,## Risks and mitigations;IMPACT_ANALYSIS.md;EXTERNAL_RESEARCH.md;REFERENCES.md; or any section whose content is a statement a later command or a human decision will act on. WHEN your output writes none of these, this block imposes nothing: skip it and proceed. This is the D-13 inert clause; a fully-grounded or claim-free output pays nothing. - The unit is the load-bearing claim. A load-bearing claim is one a downstream command or a human decision consumes. A passing aside is not load-bearing; a statement someone will act on is. Apply the rest of this block per load-bearing claim, not per sentence.
- Ground it or abstain. Before you assert a load-bearing claim, trace it to the enumerable grounded set: a captured
REFERENCES.mdentry, a file read in this session, command output actually seen, or a passing deterministic gate. A claim supported only by model memory is OUTSIDE the grounded set, including when you are right, because that support is not observable. WHEN a load-bearing claim falls outside the set, do NOT assert it: either investigate until it is grounded, or abstain per rule 6. - Status records provenance, never confidence. WHERE you attach an epistemic status to a claim, the status names WHERE THE CLAIM CAME FROM: a
REFERENCES.mdentry title, a file path plus line, or the gate output it came from. It SHALL NOT express a degree of certainty. Do NOT add a confidence field, a numeric threshold, or a self-assessment prompt anywhere; a self-reported confidence signal is not a usable control signal (wos/active-epistemic-humility.mdPart 1.3). A status whose referent slot is empty is read as UNKNOWN, not as a weak yes. - Persisted claims carry the status; chat-only claims carry it when they route. Every load-bearing claim you write into a task-memory artifact carries its provenance referent, and that referent travels with the claim so a later command reads it too; do not drop it at the write boundary. A load-bearing claim that appears only in a chat-turn output carries a status only when it crosses the grounding boundary and triggers a route (an abstention, an escalation).
- Abstain as a routed continuation, never a bare refusal. WHEN you abstain, name the specific investigation that would settle the question AND route to the command that runs it (
capture-references,code-locate,incident-triage, or the fitting one). A withholding that stalls the work is invalid output. Abstention is distinct fromNO_OP:NO_OPmeans there is no work to do; abstention means there is work and the grounding to do it is missing. - An unfired gate is not evidence. The absence of a fired check does not mean grounding existed. Do not read silence here as a pass.
Standard output layout (required)
Produce the command output using this structure (English only):
Artifact changes
Follow ## Global output contract in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md for APPLIED / PROPOSED / SKIP rules. Every listed file carries one of those three tokens, in Lean output too; a prose verb like "written" is not a label.
Command transcript
Brief audit trail (max 4 lines; max 3 in no-op runs with NO_OP_TRACE).
Handoff
Use the adaptive ending format of WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md ## Global output contract. Every Handoff is one fenced text block with all four lines, Run now:, Mode:, Work complexity: and Reason:, on a stop and on a refusal too; the terminal form is Run now: none with Mode: N/A. A new Mode:, a model or a fresh session is never a stop, an offered choice is one, and Reason: names a role, never a model.
Definition of done (command output)
- All tokens from code AND docs are accounted for in the comparison.
- Each drift finding has: category, token name, code value, doc value, severity, suggested fix.
- If Figma was included: 3-way comparison is complete.
- If everything is in sync, health says so clearly.
- Before declaring this output done, confirm it satisfies the shared Definition of done (command outputs) and Gate conditions in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md.
Quality bar: Every finding is grounded in actual code and doc values, not assumptions. If tokens are in sync, say so.
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.

