agentleFS
aegnticaegntic/compound-engineering/skills/agent-native-audit/SKILL.md

agent-native-audit

Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Run a comprehensive scored audit of agent-native architecture principles

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

18 rules. About 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈16

    Distinctive · estimate

    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 review of a codebase against agent-native architecture principles, split the work into scored principle-specific audit …

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    After adding agent tools, prompts, commands, or shared-workspace behavior

    line 22
  3. Distinctive:

    Before shipping major agent-facing product changes

    line 23
  4. Distinctive:

    When you need a numeric baseline for how agent-native a system really is

    line 24
  5. Distinctive:

    When you want prioritized recommendations instead of a vague architectural opinion

    line 25
  6. Distinctive:

    Use the local skill name directly.

    line 55
  7. Very specific:

    If $ARGUMENTS names a single principle, audit only that principle.

    line 59
  8. Distinctive:

    When auditing a plugin, CLI, or developer-tooling codebase, map "user actions" and "UI" broadly:

    line 63
  9. Distinctive:

    Prefer discovery-oriented agents for evidence gathering and stronger review agents for synthesis when available.

    line 80
  10. Distinctive:

    Check compliance against the principle

    line 85
  11. Distinctive:

    Check which actions have corresponding agent tools, commands, or capabilities

    line 105
  12. Distinctive:

    Check whether agents and users operate on the same state or separate shadow state

    line 185
  13. Distinctive:

    Check how agent actions propagate to user-visible surfaces

    line 232
  14. Distinctive:

    Check for these discovery mechanisms:

    line 260
  15. Distinctive:

    Read prompts, agents, skills, commands, and orchestration code

    line 288
  16. Distinctive:

    Check whether changing behavior usually requires prompt edits or code edits

    line 292
  17. Distinctive:

    After all audit tracks finish, compile a single report:

    line 308
  18. Very specific:

    If $ARGUMENTS specifies a single principle, run only that audit track and provide detailed findings for that principle.

    line 353

≈ “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.

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

Agent-Native Audit

Run a comprehensive review of a codebase against agent-native architecture principles, split the work into scored principle-specific audit tracks, and produce a prioritized summary report.

Announce at start: "I'm using the agent-native-audit skill to run a scored agent-native architecture review."

When to Use

  • After adding agent tools, prompts, commands, or shared-workspace behavior
  • Before shipping major agent-facing product changes
  • When you need a numeric baseline for how agent-native a system really is
  • When you want prioritized recommendations instead of a vague architectural opinion

Core Principles to Audit

  1. Action Parity - "Whatever the user can do, the agent can do"
  2. Tools as Primitives - "Tools provide capability, not behavior"
  3. Context Injection - "System prompt includes dynamic context about app state"
  4. Shared Workspace - "Agent and user work in the same data space"
  5. CRUD Completeness - "Every important entity has full CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete)"
  6. UI Integration - "Agent actions are reflected in the product experience"
  7. Capability Discovery - "Users can discover what the agent can do"
  8. Prompt-Native Features - "Features are prompts defining outcomes, not rigid workflow code"

Workflow

Step 1: Load the Local Reference Skill

First, invoke agent-native-architecture to refresh the local vocabulary, principles, checklist, and anti-patterns used in this plugin.

Focus especially on:

  • Core principles
  • Architecture Review Checklist
  • Tool Design
  • Files & Workspace
  • Context Injection
  • UI Integration
  • Capability Discovery
  • Anti-Patterns

Use the local skill name directly. Do not rely on Every-specific namespaced invocations.

Step 2: Decide Audit Scope

If $ARGUMENTS names a single principle, audit only that principle.

Otherwise, audit all 8 principles.

When auditing a plugin, CLI, or developer-tooling codebase, map "user actions" and "UI" broadly:

  • Slash commands
  • Prompts
  • Agents
  • Skills
  • CLI entrypoints
  • Generated artifacts
  • Shared files, docs, and workspace state

Step 3: Launch Parallel Audit Tracks

Launch up to 8 parallel audit tracks using the platform's task/subagent tool.

  • On Claude-style platforms, this is typically Task with subagent_type
  • On Copilot-style platforms, this is typically task with agent_type

Prefer discovery-oriented agents for evidence gathering and stronger review agents for synthesis when available. In this plugin, agent-native-reviewer, architecture-strategist, explore, and general-purpose are all reasonable choices depending on platform and available agents.

Each audit track should:

  1. Enumerate all relevant instances in the codebase
  2. Check compliance against the principle
  3. Produce a specific numeric score in X/Y format
  4. List concrete gaps
  5. Recommend the highest-impact fixes first

Audit Track Prompts

Track 1: Action Parity

Audit for ACTION PARITY - "Whatever the user can do, the agent can do."

Tasks:

  1. Enumerate all meaningful user actions across product surfaces:
    • UI actions
    • Slash commands
    • CLI actions
    • Form submissions
    • API endpoints
    • File and workspace operations
  2. Check which actions have corresponding agent tools, commands, or capabilities
  3. Score: "Agent can do X out of Y user actions"

Format:

## Action Parity Audit
### User Actions Found
| Action | Location | Agent Equivalent | Status |
|--------|----------|------------------|--------|
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Missing Agent Capabilities
### Recommendations

Track 2: Tools as Primitives

Audit for TOOLS AS PRIMITIVES - "Tools provide capability, not behavior."

Tasks:

  1. Find and read all agent tools, commands, or callable integration surfaces
  2. Classify each as:
    • PRIMITIVE (good) - Exposes a capability without embedding decision-making
    • WORKFLOW (risky) - Encodes business logic, orchestration, or branching that should live in prompts
  3. Score: "X out of Y tools are proper primitives"

Format:

## Tools as Primitives Audit
### Tool Analysis
| Surface | File | Type | Reasoning |
|---------|------|------|-----------|
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Workflow-Heavy Surfaces
### Recommendations

Track 3: Context Injection

Audit for CONTEXT INJECTION - "System prompt includes dynamic context about app state."

Tasks:

  1. Find context injection code, system prompts, and agent setup logic
  2. Enumerate what is injected versus what should be injected:
    • Available resources
    • User preferences
    • Recent activity
    • Workspace or session state
    • Available capabilities
    • Relevant history
  3. Score: "X out of Y important context categories are injected"

Format:

## Context Injection Audit
### Context Types Analysis
| Context Type | Injected? | Location | Notes |
|--------------|-----------|----------|-------|
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Missing Context
### Recommendations

Track 4: Shared Workspace

Audit for SHARED WORKSPACE - "Agent and user work in the same data space."

Tasks:

  1. Identify all important data stores and shared artifacts:
    • Files
    • Databases
    • Documents
    • Session stores
    • Queues
    • Generated outputs
  2. Check whether agents and users operate on the same state or separate shadow state
  3. Score: "X out of Y important data spaces are truly shared"

Format:

## Shared Workspace Audit
### Data Space Analysis
| Data Space | User Access | Agent Access | Shared? |
|------------|-------------|--------------|---------|
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Isolated State (anti-pattern)
### Recommendations

Track 5: CRUD Completeness

Audit for CRUD COMPLETENESS - "Every important entity has full CRUD."

Tasks:

  1. Identify all important entities, resources, or managed objects
  2. For each, check whether the agent can:
    • Create
    • Read
    • Update
    • Delete
  3. Score per entity and overall

Format:

## CRUD Completeness Audit
### Entity CRUD Analysis
| Entity | Create | Read | Update | Delete | Score |
|--------|--------|------|--------|--------|-------|
### Overall Score: X/Y entities with full CRUD (percentage%)
### Incomplete Entities
### Recommendations

Track 6: UI Integration

Audit for UI INTEGRATION - "Agent actions are reflected in the product experience."

Tasks:

  1. Check how agent actions propagate to user-visible surfaces
  2. Look for:
    • Immediate UI refresh
    • Shared state updates
    • Eventing or streaming
    • File watching
    • Regeneration steps
    • Clear feedback in CLI or docs
  3. Identify silent-action anti-patterns where the agent changes something but the user cannot see it promptly

Format:

## UI Integration Audit
### Agent Action -> User Visibility Analysis
| Agent Action | Surface Update Mechanism | Immediate? | Notes |
|--------------|--------------------------|------------|-------|
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Silent Actions
### Recommendations

Track 7: Capability Discovery

Audit for CAPABILITY DISCOVERY - "Users can discover what the agent can do."

Tasks:

  1. Check for these discovery mechanisms:
    • Onboarding or getting-started guidance
    • Help documentation
    • Capability hints in UI or command descriptions
    • Agent self-description
    • Suggested prompts or workflows
    • Empty-state guidance
    • Slash commands or discoverable command lists
  2. Score against the mechanisms that are relevant to the product

Format:

## Capability Discovery Audit
### Discovery Mechanism Analysis
| Mechanism | Exists? | Location | Quality |
|-----------|---------|----------|---------|
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Missing Discovery Paths
### Recommendations

Track 8: Prompt-Native Features

Audit for PROMPT-NATIVE FEATURES - "Features are prompts defining outcomes, not code."

Tasks:

  1. Read prompts, agents, skills, commands, and orchestration code
  2. Classify each important behavior as defined primarily in:
    • PROMPT (good) - Outcome described in natural language
    • CODE (risky) - Business logic hardcoded in conditionals or rigid orchestration
  3. Check whether changing behavior usually requires prompt edits or code edits

Format:

## Prompt-Native Features Audit
### Feature Definition Analysis
| Feature | Defined In | Type | Notes |
|---------|------------|------|-------|
### Score: X/Y (percentage%)
### Code-Defined Behaviors
### Recommendations

Step 4: Compile the Summary Report

After all audit tracks finish, compile a single report:

## Agent-Native Architecture Review: [Project Name]

### Overall Score Summary

| Core Principle | Score | Percentage | Status |
|----------------|-------|------------|--------|
| Action Parity | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Tools as Primitives | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Context Injection | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Shared Workspace | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| CRUD Completeness | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| UI Integration | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Capability Discovery | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Prompt-Native Features | X/Y | Z% | ✅/⚠️/❌ |

**Overall Agent-Native Score: X%**

### Status Legend
- ✅ Excellent (80%+)
- ⚠️ Partial (50-79%)
- ❌ Needs Work (<50%)

### Top 10 Recommendations by Impact

| Priority | Action | Principle | Effort |
|----------|--------|-----------|--------|

### What's Working Excellently

[List top 5 strengths]

Success Criteria

  • All requested audit tracks complete
  • Each principle has a specific numeric score in X/Y format
  • Summary table includes all audited principles and status indicators
  • Recommendations are prioritized by impact
  • Report identifies both strengths and gaps

Optional: Single Principle Audit

If $ARGUMENTS specifies a single principle, run only that audit track and provide detailed findings for that principle.

Valid arguments:

  • action parity or 1
  • tools or primitives or 2
  • context or injection or 3
  • shared or workspace or 4
  • crud or 5
  • ui or integration or 6
  • discovery or 7
  • prompt or features or 8

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.