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
- 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 repository22 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- brainstormSkill
- checkpointSkill
- codereviewSkill
- commitSkill
- debugSkill
- estimateSkill
- finishSkill
- healthSkill
- learnSkill
- lintSkill
- migrate-architectureSkill
- migrate-frameworkSkill
- onboardSkill
- planSkill
- recallSkill
- rememberSkill
- tddSkill
- tutorialSkill
- verifySkill
- worktreeSkill
- write-skillSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 11
Run a comprehensive audit that combines security, performance, architecture, and dependency analysis in one pass.
- Distinctive: line 17
Before a production release
- Distinctive: line 18
After a major refactor
- Distinctive: line 20
When onboarding to an unfamiliar codebase
- Distinctive: line 21
When technical debt feels unmanageable
- Very specific: line 22
NOT for: single-file reviews (use @reviewer instead)
- Distinctive: line 36
Read the project structure.
- Distinctive: line 44
Check for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities:
- Distinctive: line 77
Check for performance issues:
- Distinctive: line 123
All 4 audit domains were checked (security, architecture, performance, dependencies)
- Distinctive: line 124
Every finding has a severity level
- Distinctive: line 125
Every CRITICAL/HIGH finding has a specific remediation step
- Very specific: line 142
Run automated tools: - Never skip npm audit or linting if available
- Distinctive: line 143
Severity must be justified: - Every rating needs evidence
- Distinctive: line 146
Never assume safety: - Verify, don't trust
“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.
Files
/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
@reviewerinstead)
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 projectRead 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:
| Check | What to Look For |
| Injection | SQL/NoSQL injection, command injection, XSS |
| Auth | Hardcoded secrets, weak JWT config, missing CSRF |
| Access Control | Missing auth checks, IDOR, privilege escalation |
| Cryptography | Weak algorithms, plaintext passwords, missing encryption |
| Configuration | Debug mode in production, verbose errors, default credentials |
| Dependencies | Known CVEs in packages |
| Data Exposure | Sensitive 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 || trueStep 3: Architecture Audit
Check structural integrity:
| Check | Criteria |
| Layer separation | Services don't import from components |
| Circular dependencies | No import cycles |
| Naming conventions | Consistent file/function naming |
| Type safety | TypeScript strict mode, no any abuse |
| Error handling | Try/catch at boundaries, custom error classes |
| API contracts | DTOs/schemas at boundaries |
Step 4: Performance Audit
Check for performance issues:
| Check | What to Look For |
| Bundle size | Large imports, missing tree-shaking |
| N+1 queries | Database calls in loops |
| Memory leaks | Uncleaned listeners, subscriptions, timers |
| Rendering | Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization |
| Network | Missing caching, redundant API calls |
| Assets | Unoptimized images, missing lazy loading |
Step 5: Dependency Audit
Check dependency health:
| Check | What to Look For |
| Outdated | Major versions behind |
| Vulnerable | Known CVEs |
| Unused | Installed but not imported |
| Duplicate | Multiple versions of same package |
| License | Incompatible licenses (GPL in MIT project) |
Run if available:
npx depcheck --json 2>/dev/null || trueStep 6: Report Generation
Compile findings into a structured report with severity ratings.
Severity Levels
| Level | Description | Action |
| CRITICAL | Security vulnerability or data loss risk | Fix immediately |
| HIGH | Architecture violation or major performance issue | Fix before release |
| MEDIUM | Code quality issue or minor vulnerability | Fix in next sprint |
| LOW | Style issue or minor improvement | Fix when convenient |
| INFO | Observation or recommendation | Consider for future |
Verification Protocol
Before claiming audit is complete:
- All 4 audit domains were checked (security, architecture, performance, dependencies)
- Every finding has a severity level
- Every CRITICAL/HIGH finding has a specific remediation step
- Automated tools were run where available (npm audit, eslint, depcheck)
- Report includes line-level references for each finding
Anti-Rationalization
| Excuse | Reality |
| "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
- Check all 4 domains - Skipping one defeats the purpose
- Run automated tools - Never skip
npm auditor linting if available - Severity must be justified - Every rating needs evidence
- Remediation is required - Findings without fix suggestions are useless
- Line references are required - Point to exact files and lines
- 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]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.

