agentleFS
marcop135marcop135/wp-agent-harness/.claude/skills/wp-abilities-audit/SKILL.md

wp-abilities-audit

Skill0 starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub

Audit a WordPress plugin's REST surface and produce a standardized audit document proposing Abilities API registrations. Produces a markdown doc with a YAML schema and prose sections that humans and agents can both consume when planning a registration rollout. Works on any WP plugin.

1 other project uses a version of this; 1 new project in the last 4 weeks, against 0 the 4 before.

Adopted by

Surging: 1 new project took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 1 new projectWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 25: 0 new projectsWeek of Nov 1: 0 new projects
Sep 2026Oct 2026Nov 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 1 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 8

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read references/controller-enumeration.md now — it covers the two observed enumeration paths (glob for standard layouts, grep as the …

    line 50
  2. Very specific:

    Read references/audit-schema.md now for the exact field list and the shape of proposed_abilities entries.

    line 65
  3. Very specific:

    Read references/capability-gate-tracing.md now — it documents the two common mechanisms (direct check_permission() vs post-type-backed …

    line 76
  4. Distinctive:

    Do NOT atomize one ability per HTTP method.

    line 84
  5. Very specific:

    Read ../wp-abilities-api/references/grouping-heuristic.md now — do NOT re-derive the rules here.

    line 87
  6. Very specific:

    Write to the explicit output path collected in "Inputs required".

    line 134
  7. Very specific:

    Every ability with backing: null also appears in surfaced_gaps.

    line 160
  8. Very specific:

    If the plugin uses an enumeration convention not covered by references/controller-enumeration.md (neither the standard glob nor the grep …

    line 192
  9. Very specific:

    If capability tracing hits a mechanism not covered by references/capability-gate-tracing.md, extend that file rather than encoding the new …

    line 196

≈ “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

WP Abilities Audit

Produce a standardized audit document for a WordPress plugin's REST surface, proposing a set of Abilities API registrations grouped by semantic intent. The audit doc is a planning artifact for implementers — humans, agents, or both — that captures the controller inventory, capability gates, and proposed ability shapes in a structured form. A reviewer reading the doc can scope the work without re-deriving the survey.

This skill works on any plugin that exposes a REST surface. Plugin classification (for purposes of the optional plugin_family annotation) is the user's call; the workflow itself is plugin-agnostic.

When to use

  • The task is "register Abilities API abilities for a WP plugin" and no audit doc exists yet.
  • Planning participation in a multi-plugin abilities rollout and need a shareable, standardized audit artifact.
  • Pre-flight checking a plugin's agent-readiness before implementing abilities.
  • A PM or non-implementer wants to scope the work before engineering picks it up.

Inputs required

  1. Plugin checkout path — working tree of the plugin to audit.
  2. Triage output — run wp-project-triage first if not already done. The audit consumes signals.usesAbilitiesApi, versions.wordpress, and project.kind from the report.
  3. Auditor identity — name and team or context, recorded in the audit's auditor field.
  4. Output path — where the audit doc should land. Default explicit over implicit; ask if not provided rather than writing into the plugin worktree.

Prerequisites

  • wp-project-triage has run successfully and classified the plugin.
  • The plugin has at least one REST controller. If enumeration finds zero controllers, the audit doesn't apply — see "Failure modes" below.

Procedure

1. Enumerate REST controllers

Read references/controller-enumeration.md now — it covers the two observed enumeration paths (glob for standard layouts, grep as the universal fallback) and when to use each.

Record every controller class + file + REST base + routes in a "Controller Inventory" table. The inventory is exhaustive even though only a subset becomes proposed abilities.

2. For each controller, extract the backing fields

For every controller found, extract the fields the audit schema requires: class, file, HTTP method, route, route-registration line number, callback name, callback line number, permission callback, whether the callback takes a WP_REST_Request argument or is zero-arg, and the return type.

Read references/audit-schema.md now for the exact field list and the shape of proposed_abilities entries. Line-number fields may be null for inherited callbacks — the schema allows this and pairs it with an optional inherited_from field.

3. Confirm capability gate(s)

Trace each controller's permission_callback to its current_user_can() call (or to the post-type capability machinery if the controller extends a post-type-backed base).

Read references/capability-gate-tracing.md now — it documents the two common mechanisms (direct check_permission() vs post-type-backed wc_rest_check_post_permissions()) and how to represent each in the schema. Note explicitly whether read and write gates differ: compound gates are represented as a {read, write} object, not a single string.

4. Propose abilities using semantic-intent grouping

Do NOT atomize one ability per HTTP method. Apply the semantic-intent grouping heuristic — it's the only grouping rule this skill uses.

Read ../wp-abilities-api/references/grouping-heuristic.md now — do NOT re-derive the rules here. Short version: one ability per real-world question or state transition, with filter parameters in input_schema collapsing N variants into 1.

Apply the use-case sanity check before populating any candidate. Per ../wp-abilities-api/references/domain-vs-projection.md's use-case-contract test: would a human or agent intentionally perform this behavior through a supported plugin workflow? If yes, the candidate is a real ability — proceed to fill in fields. If no, the route is internal transport plumbing (cache invalidation, scheduler ticks, bookkeeping endpoints, debug introspection) — keep it in the Controller Inventory section for completeness, but do NOT promote it to proposed_abilities. The route may be useful to inventory; the proposed ability must represent a real user/operator question or action.

For each proposed ability that passes the sanity check, fill in every field in the proposed_abilities schema: name, intent, backing, permission, return_type, effort (S/M/L), annotations (readonly/destructive/idempotent), notes, risks, use_case_fit, side_effects, seed_data_needs.

The last three are the implementation-readiness facts the implementer and the verify-mode tooling both need: which human/agent workflow this ability serves (use_case_fit), what the backing path emits on every call (side_effects — empty array is a fact, not a missing value), and what representative data must exist in the test environment for the ability to execute through the public boundary (seed_data_needs).

5. Surface gaps and deferred items

Three buckets:

  • excluded_from_mvp — candidates intentionally deferred for risk reasons (real-money writes, irreversible state changes, or prerequisite design work). Each entry gets a one-sentence reason.
  • surfaced_gaps — MVP candidates with no backing endpoint (ability with backing: null), plus high-value endpoints discovered during enumeration that aren't in the MVP list but would be easy future wins.
  • Risks per ability — anything about a backing endpoint that the implementer must handle (no idempotency key, two-phase behavior, state-transition caveats, zero-arg endpoints registered with permission_callback => '__return_true' that must NOT copy that into the ability registration).

6. Write the audit doc

Write to the explicit output path collected in "Inputs required". The document structure must match references/audit-schema.md exactly:

  1. Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM header.
  2. YAML block with all required top-level metadata + proposed_abilities, excluded_from_mvp, surfaced_gaps.
  3. "Controller Inventory" table.
  4. "Notes and Surprises" prose section.

A copy-pasteable minimal example showing the full shape lives in references/audit-schema.md under "Minimal valid example" — start there when authoring a new audit.

7. (Optional) Designate a reference implementation ability

Set reference_ability: true on the first ability an implementer should land — typically the smallest, safest, highest-leverage read. This gives downstream workflows a deterministic starting point.

Verification

  • The audit conforms to references/audit-schema.md (all required top-level fields present, at least one entry in proposed_abilities, annotations complete on every ability).
  • capability_gate is a string for single-cap plugins or a {read, write} object for post-type-backed plugins.
  • Every ability with backing: null also appears in surfaced_gaps.
  • The doc round-trips through the validator in audit-schema.md "Known limitations" without errors.

Failure modes / debugging

  • Plugin has no REST controllers — audit doesn't apply. Consider hooks/filters-based abilities (out of scope for this skill's current version) or skip abilities adoption for this plugin.
  • Plugin inherits controllers from another repo (common for plugins extending core post-type-backed controllers like WP_REST_Posts_Controller, or extension plugins built on a parent's REST classes) — capture with backing.inherited_from: "<parent FQCN>". Line-number fields may be null per the schema.
  • Compound capability gate (distinct read/write caps) — use the structured {read, write} form documented in references/capability-gate-tracing.md. Don't smuggle a /-separated string into a field typed as a single cap.
  • Ambiguous grouping — route to ../wp-abilities-api/references/grouping-heuristic.md. Do not invent alternative grouping rules in the audit doc.
  • Zero-arg endpoints with permission_callback => '__return_true' — legal at the REST layer, but the ability's own permission_callback must match the plugin's merchant gate. Never promote '__return_true' into an ability registration. Note this in the ability's risks.
  • Output path defaults to plugin worktree — always ask the user for an explicit output directory (e.g. their vault plans/). Writing the audit into the plugin's own git history pollutes the worktree and buries the artifact.

Escalation

  • If the plugin uses an enumeration convention not covered by references/controller-enumeration.md (neither the standard glob nor the grep fallback produces a complete inventory), update that reference with the new convention and open a PR so future audits cover it deterministically.
  • If capability tracing hits a mechanism not covered by references/capability-gate-tracing.md, extend that file rather than encoding the new case in the audit's "Notes and Surprises" only.

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.