agentleFS
NoaiRoxNoaiRox/specialist-agent/skills/audit/SKILL.md

audit

Skill2 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when you need a comprehensive code audit covering security, performance, architecture, and dependencies before a release, major refactor, or compliance review.

194 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

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-hubSkill

    delight

    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-hubSkill

    teach-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

  • zwy123zwySkill

    normalize

    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

  • SkillPilotCHSkill

    level-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-aiSkill

    pm-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

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 175 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
  1. Distinctive:

    Run a comprehensive audit that combines security, performance, architecture, and dependency analysis in one pass.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Before a production release

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    After a major refactor

    line 18
  4. Distinctive:

    When onboarding to an unfamiliar codebase

    line 20
  5. Distinctive:

    When technical debt feels unmanageable

    line 21
  6. Very specific:

    NOT for: single-file reviews (use @reviewer instead)

    line 22
  7. Distinctive:

    Read the project structure.

    line 36
  8. Distinctive:

    Check for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities:

    line 44
  9. Distinctive:

    Check for performance issues:

    line 77
  10. Distinctive:

    All 4 audit domains were checked (security, architecture, performance, dependencies)

    line 123
  11. Distinctive:

    Every finding has a severity level

    line 124
  12. Distinctive:

    Every CRITICAL/HIGH finding has a specific remediation step

    line 125
  13. Very specific:

    Run automated tools: - Never skip npm audit or linting if available

    line 142
  14. Distinctive:

    Severity must be justified: - Every rating needs evidence

    line 143
  15. Distinctive:

    Never assume safety: - Verify, don't trust

    line 146

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 175 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

/audit - Multi-Agent Code Audit

Run a comprehensive audit that combines security, performance, architecture, and dependency analysis in one pass.

Target: $ARGUMENTS

When to Use

  • Before a production release
  • After a major refactor
  • During compliance reviews (SOC2, ISO 27001)
  • When onboarding to an unfamiliar codebase
  • When technical debt feels unmanageable
  • NOT for: single-file reviews (use @reviewer instead)

Workflow

Step 1: Scope Definition

Determine audit scope:

IF $ARGUMENTS is a path → audit that path
IF $ARGUMENTS is a module name → find and audit the module
IF $ARGUMENTS is empty → audit entire project

Read the project structure. Identify:

  • Total files and lines of code
  • Primary language and framework
  • Test coverage indicators
  • CI/CD configuration

Step 2: Security Audit

Check for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities:

CheckWhat to Look For
InjectionSQL/NoSQL injection, command injection, XSS
AuthHardcoded secrets, weak JWT config, missing CSRF
Access ControlMissing auth checks, IDOR, privilege escalation
CryptographyWeak algorithms, plaintext passwords, missing encryption
ConfigurationDebug mode in production, verbose errors, default credentials
DependenciesKnown CVEs in packages
Data ExposureSensitive data in logs, responses, or error messages

Run if available:

npm audit --json 2>/dev/null || true
npx eslint --format json $TARGET 2>/dev/null || true

Step 3: Architecture Audit

Check structural integrity:

CheckCriteria
Layer separationServices don't import from components
Circular dependenciesNo import cycles
Naming conventionsConsistent file/function naming
Type safetyTypeScript strict mode, no any abuse
Error handlingTry/catch at boundaries, custom error classes
API contractsDTOs/schemas at boundaries

Step 4: Performance Audit

Check for performance issues:

CheckWhat to Look For
Bundle sizeLarge imports, missing tree-shaking
N+1 queriesDatabase calls in loops
Memory leaksUncleaned listeners, subscriptions, timers
RenderingUnnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
NetworkMissing caching, redundant API calls
AssetsUnoptimized images, missing lazy loading

Step 5: Dependency Audit

Check dependency health:

CheckWhat to Look For
OutdatedMajor versions behind
VulnerableKnown CVEs
UnusedInstalled but not imported
DuplicateMultiple versions of same package
LicenseIncompatible licenses (GPL in MIT project)

Run if available:

npx depcheck --json 2>/dev/null || true

Step 6: Report Generation

Compile findings into a structured report with severity ratings.

Severity Levels

LevelDescriptionAction
CRITICALSecurity vulnerability or data loss riskFix immediately
HIGHArchitecture violation or major performance issueFix before release
MEDIUMCode quality issue or minor vulnerabilityFix in next sprint
LOWStyle issue or minor improvementFix when convenient
INFOObservation or recommendationConsider for future

Verification Protocol

Before claiming audit is complete:

  1. All 4 audit domains were checked (security, architecture, performance, dependencies)
  2. Every finding has a severity level
  3. Every CRITICAL/HIGH finding has a specific remediation step
  4. Automated tools were run where available (npm audit, eslint, depcheck)
  5. Report includes line-level references for each finding

Anti-Rationalization

ExcuseReality
"No security issues found"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Did you check all OWASP categories?
"Architecture looks fine"Did you trace actual imports, or just scan filenames?
"Dependencies are up to date"Did you run npm audit? Check for unused deps?
"Performance seems okay"Did you check for N+1 queries, memory leaks, bundle size?
"The codebase is too large to audit fully"Scope down to critical paths (auth, payments, data). Never skip security.

Rules

  1. Check all 4 domains - Skipping one defeats the purpose
  2. Run automated tools - Never skip npm audit or linting if available
  3. Severity must be justified - Every rating needs evidence
  4. Remediation is required - Findings without fix suggestions are useless
  5. Line references are required - Point to exact files and lines
  6. Never assume safety - Verify, don't trust

Output

──── /audit ────
Target: [path or module]
Scope: [X files, Y lines]

Security:     [X critical, Y high, Z medium]
Architecture: [X high, Y medium]
Performance:  [X high, Y medium]
Dependencies: [X vulnerable, Y outdated, Z unused]

Overall Score: [0-100]
Risk Level: [CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW]

Top Findings:
1. [CRITICAL] [description] - [file:line]
2. [HIGH] [description] - [file:line]
3. [HIGH] [description] - [file:line]

Full report: [inline below]

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.