agentleFS
TidalPaladinTidalPaladin/skills/codebase-audit/SKILL.md

codebase-audit

Skill1 starsChanged 23 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Audit a repository for material defects and improvement opportunities, then draft prioritized issues.

28 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use cloud-api-recipe-authoring, codebuddy-ide-mcp-upgrade 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.
  • TencentCloudBaseSkill

    cloud-api-recipe-authoring

    Author or revise a cloud-api-operations recipe (config/source/skills/cloud-api-operations/references/recipes/). Encodes why the long tail of control-plane capabilities is deliberately NOT wrapped as MCP/CLI tools, the API-first admission test for whether a capability deserves a recipe, the negative and positive lists, the fixed recipe structure, the writing rules distilled from writing-for-agents, the user-facing copy red lines, and the product regeneration/verification pipeline. Also routes contributors (and their agents) to the contribution flow and the pre-PR self-test protocol in references/contributing.md. Use when adding a recipe, judging whether a scenario belongs in the recipe set, updating the recipes index, re-checking existing recipes against the admission test, or onboarding someone who wants to submit one.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • TencentCloudBaseSkill

    codebuddy-ide-mcp-upgrade

    升级 CodeBuddy IDE(genie 扩展)内置的 CloudBase MCP,以及 MCP 发版时同步 IDE 侧白名单。当用户提到「更新 IDE 里的 MCP」「内置 MCP 版本太老」「IDE 集成的 CloudBase 功能不足」「改工具白名单 toolWhiteList」「把新 bundle 打进 CodeBuddy」「白名单漂移」「MCP 发版要同步什么」时使用。覆盖:解包定位内置 bundle 与内嵌配置、重新构建 mcp bundle、生成新的工具白名单与系统提示词、安全注入 IDE 并备份、用 MCP 协议验证工具清单、人工端到端验收、一键回滚。

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • frostneySkill

    native-nostalgia-stack

    Applies the user's FreePascal toolchain and its build, formatting, hook, and test contracts while leaving project-specific mechanics local. Use when scaffolding or working in a FreePascal project that follows this toolchain.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • frostneySkill

    software-engineering-excellence

    Applies the user's engineering standards during substantial technical work: preserve scope, use current evidence, delegate independent parts, and complete authorized outcomes. Use during substantial implementation, debugging, refactoring, or multi-part delivery work.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • withpiperSkill

    roadmap-review

    Audit roadmap health — issues, dependency order, spec coverage, doc freshness. Use when speccing a new initiative. Use when /phase-plan output looks suspicious. Use before /roadmap-create reruns.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • zaxbysauceSkill

    pr-review-fix

    Codex adapter for addressing pull request review feedback in opencode-swarm. Use when the user asks to fix PR review comments, requested changes, reviewer findings, CI-review notes, or a pasted review summary with low false-positive tolerance.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +6 more from TencentCloudBase

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 28 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use public CVE checks for that pass.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep security work defensive and omit unnecessary exploit details.

    line 22
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not modify audited source code.

    line 24
  4. Distinctive:

    Verify bugs with a reproduction or a reachable failure path and violated invariant.

    line 30
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not present them as confirmed findings.

    line 35
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not create a goal merely because the audit could be extensive.

    line 38
  7. Very specific:

    Use issue format when triaging or drafting findings.

    line 40
  8. Very specific:

    Check open and closed upstream issues for duplicates.

    line 41
  9. Very specific:

    Use $git-github-workflow for remote access and its authorized connector fallback.

    line 42
  10. Distinctive:

    Do not close issues as part of an audit.

    line 47

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 28 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

Codebase Audit

Inspect the supplied repository or current checkout. Include relevant working changes. Exclude generated files, caches, and vendored trees unless they affect shipped artifacts or the requested audit. Prepare evidence-backed findings and desired outcomes without designing fixes.

Audit Scope

Cover bugs, quality, performance, enhancements, and documentation unless the user narrows the scope. Use the rubric for finding admission and relevant vectors.

Limit default cybersecurity work to known public CVE applicability. Use public CVE checks for that pass. Novel vulnerability analysis requires an explicit request. Keep security work defensive and omit unnecessary exploit details.

Do not modify audited source code. Run checks when they can establish a finding without changing tracked files. Record inspected surfaces and unavailable evidence. Missing gates warrant findings when they create a concrete detection gap.

Evidence and Completion

Verify bugs with a reproduction or a reachable failure path and violated invariant. Support performance findings with measurements or a realistic resource argument. Consolidate shared causes. Reject speculative features and subjective style churn.

In Plan Mode, perform a cursory read-only pass and report provisional areas. Do not present them as confirmed findings. Outside Plan Mode, complete one audit of the requested scope. Under an active goal, repeat until a complete pass adds no admissible findings. Do not create a goal merely because the audit could be extensive.

Use issue format when triaging or drafting findings. Check open and closed upstream issues for duplicates. Use $git-github-workflow for remote access and its authorized connector fallback.

An audit produces drafts by default. File issues or create labels only when the task authorizes those actions. Honor authorization already given without another checkpoint. Refresh evidence, duplicates, and labels before filing. Do not close issues as part of an audit.

Report inspected scope, findings, evidence, CVE check results, and material gaps. Say when no high-value findings remain. Do not invent findings to fill categories.

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.