agentleFS
fiveonecodefiveonecode/agent-skills/mechanism-audit/SKILL.md

mechanism-audit

Skill20 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Audit whether a spec, task, harness, agent workflow, safety boundary, or operational contract is actually enforced by concrete mechanisms. Use when reviewing or changing AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .agents/manifests, .agents/verify, .agents/evals, spec/agents, build/test specs, task plans, risk/execution contracts, source-of-truth boundaries, session closeout rules, verifier classifications, or any explicit request to check whether a promised guarantee is real.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈12

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to test whether a stated promise is enforced by code, config, verification, or operational process.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not run a broad multi-expert swarm.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    If the promise is unclear, rewrite it as one testable sentence before auditing.

    line 26
  4. Distinctive:

    Find bypass paths: Look for ways the promise can be skipped, narrowed, stale, manually overridden, or satisfied by prose instead of proof.

    line 34
  5. Distinctive:

    Give a verdict: Use exactly one of:

    line 38
  6. Distinctive:

    When a repo harness requires mechanism-audit evidence for the current session, write the same output to:

    line 75
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not create a durable artifact for small ad hoc answers unless the user or harness asks for it.

    line 82
  8. Distinctive:

    When a harness supports path-scoped audit routing, declare the requirement in the manifest that owns the contract-bearing paths.

    line 87
  9. Distinctive:

    Prefer exact file references and command names over general claims.

    line 109
  10. Distinctive:

    Treat stale state, narrowed path sets, manual override paths, and missing artifact checks as potential bypasses.

    line 112
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not call a promise enforced just because a human is expected to notice it.

    line 114
  12. Distinctive:

    Do not use text keyword matching as evidence that an audit is required.

    line 115

≈ “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

Mechanism Audit

Purpose

Use this skill to test whether a stated promise is enforced by code, config, verification, or operational process. Keep the audit short and evidence-led. Do not run a broad multi-expert swarm. This skill is safe to use from high or xhigh reasoning contexts because it is a bounded checklist, not a creativity prompt.

Inputs

Gather only the evidence needed to test the promise:

  • the promise or contract being audited
  • the files that define the rule
  • the code, config, or process that enforces it
  • the verification profile, test, artifact, or manual proof that checks it
  • the task/session context when the harness requires a durable audit artifact

If the promise is unclear, rewrite it as one testable sentence before auditing.

Audit Workflow

  1. Name the promise. State what the doc, task, or harness appears to guarantee. Use one sentence.
  2. Map the enforcement chain. List the concrete files, commands, checks, code paths, review gates, or artifacts that make the promise true.
  3. Find bypass paths. Look for ways the promise can be skipped, narrowed, stale, manually overridden, or satisfied by prose instead of proof.
  4. Check verification. Decide whether the current tests, verifier profiles, required evidence, or closeout gates would catch the bypass paths.
  5. Give a verdict. Use exactly one of:
    • holds
    • partially holds
    • does not hold
    • not enough evidence
  6. List fixes. Use:
    • P0 for fixes required before the guarantee should stand
    • P1 for robustness improvements that strengthen an already plausible guarantee

Output Shape

Use this format:

Promise:
- <one testable sentence>

Enforcement chain:
- <file/code/config/process evidence>

Bypass paths:
- <specific bypass or "none found">

Verification coverage:
- <what is checked and what is not checked>

Verdict:
- <holds | partially holds | does not hold | not enough evidence>

Fixes:
- P0: <required fix, or "none">
- P1: <strengthening fix, or "none">

Harness Artifact

When a repo harness requires mechanism-audit evidence for the current session, write the same output to:

<session-dir>/mechanism-audit.md

Do not create a durable artifact for small ad hoc answers unless the user or harness asks for it.

Harness Integration

When a harness supports path-scoped audit routing, declare the requirement in the manifest that owns the contract-bearing paths. Keep selection based on paths or task metadata, not prompt keywords:

mechanism_audits:
  - id: repo-contract-enforcement
    description: Audit whether this repository contract is mechanically enforced.
    applies_to:
      - AGENTS.md
      - .agents/manifests/**
      - .agents/verify/**
    artifact: mechanism-audit.md

The harness owns artifact enforcement, repair routing, and any additional structured result contract. This skill owns the human-readable audit workflow and fixed verdict vocabulary; do not duplicate a controller-specific result schema here.

Quality Bar

  • Prefer exact file references and command names over general claims.
  • Separate policy from enforcement. A sentence in AGENTS.md is policy; it is not enforcement unless another gate checks it.
  • Treat stale state, narrowed path sets, manual override paths, and missing artifact checks as potential bypasses.
  • Do not call a promise enforced just because a human is expected to notice it.
  • Do not use text keyword matching as evidence that an audit is required. Audit requirements should come from manifests, task metadata, changed contract fields, or explicit user direction.

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.