claims-audit
Skill39 starsChanged 19 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Verify documented capabilities against codebase — extract claims from docs, verify wiring, generate report, file issues for broken claims
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- amkisko/prayerstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- loootai/reverse-engineertheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- amkisko/prayers★ 2same name
- loootai/reverse-engineer★ 1same name
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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adoptSkill
- bugfixSkill
- bulk-auditSkill
- canonical-auditSkill
- commitSkill
- dead-code-reviewSkill
- deploySkill
- implementSkill
- issueSkill
- parallelSkill
- researchSkill
- research-to-issuesSkill
- secreviewSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 10
Run this after any significant feature addition, deletion, or docs change to keep the verification artifact current.
- Distinctive: line 20
After merging a feature PR to verify the capability is actually reachable
- Distinctive: line 21
After docs updates to check for drift between claims and implementation
- Distinctive: line 23
When a capability is reported broken
- Distinctive: line 79
Update the Summary table counts at the top.
- Very specific: line 83
Use the file_issues.py script to automatically file issues for all broken claims:
- Distinctive: line 93
Check GitHub for duplicate issues
- Distinctive: line 95
Update the inventory with the filed issue URL
- Distinctive: line 112
After running, print a summary:
- Very specific: line 150
Only walk docs/ and README.md for claims — do not grep source code for claims (implementation is the evidence, not the source of claims)
- Very specific: line 152
If a claim has status: "wired" and nothing has changed, re-verify quickly and update generated_at only
≈ “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.
Files
Claims Audit
Regenerates docs/verification.md and docs/verification-inventory.json by walking the repo's documented capabilities and verifying each has a wired endpoint, test, or service definition.
Run this after any significant feature addition, deletion, or docs change to keep the verification artifact current.
Usage
/claims-auditWhen to use
- After merging a feature PR to verify the capability is actually reachable
- After docs updates to check for drift between claims and implementation
- On a weekly schedule (see Scheduled execution below)
- When a capability is reported broken
Phases
Phase 1 — Extract claims
Walk these sources in order:
README.md— extract every bullet under "Features at a Glance", "Core Services", and "What AutoBot Does"docs/architecture/— extract capability claims (services described as running, APIs described as exposed)docs/developer/— extract capability claims (SDK, plugin system, NPU, fleet management)docs/system-state.md— extract ✅ complete capabilities from the status table
For each claim, record:
{
"capability": "<short name>",
"claim": "<verbatim excerpt>",
"source": { "file": "<relative path>", "line": <line_number> }
}Load existing inventory from docs/verification-inventory.json as a baseline. Merge new claims; preserve IDs of existing entries.
Phase 2 — Verify each claim
For each claim, run these checks in order (first match wins):
| Check | Method | Evidence kind |
| API endpoint | grep -rn "^@router|^@app" autobot-backend/api/ --include="*.py" matching the capability | endpoint |
| Router registration | Grep autobot-backend/initialization/router_registry/ for the module path | router |
| Docker service | Grep docker-compose.yml for a service matching the capability name | service |
| Test file | find autobot-backend/ -name "*test*.py" -o -name "test_*.py" matching the capability | test |
| Implementation | find autobot-backend/ -name "*.py" matching the capability | implementation |
Assign status:
- ✅ wired — endpoint + router registration found (or Docker service with healthcheck)
- ⚠️ partial — implementation exists but endpoint or Docker wiring is missing; OR capability lives in a different service than claimed
- ❌ broken — claim appears in docs but no endpoint, service, or test can be found; OR implementation exists but is provably unreachable (e.g., celery beat defined but not scheduled)
Phase 3 — Write artifacts
docs/verification-inventory.json — update with current status, evidence, notes, and generated_at.
docs/verification.md — regenerate the full table using the inventory. Format:
| # | Capability | Source Claim | Claim Location | Verified-by Artifact | Status | Notes |Include:
- File:line links formatted as
[file.py:NN](../relative/path/file.py#LNN)for IDE navigation - Endpoint URLs where available
- Test file references
Update the Summary table counts at the top.
Phase 4 — File discovery issues
Use the file_issues.py script to automatically file issues for all broken claims:
cd .claude/skills/claims-audit
python3 file_issues.py --inventory-path ../../../docs/verification-inventory.jsonThe script will:
- Load the inventory from
docs/verification-inventory.json - For each claim with
status: "broken"and nodiscovery_issuefield:- Check GitHub for duplicate issues
- File a new discovery issue with labels
tech-debtanddocs - Update the inventory with the filed issue URL
- Skip claims that already have discovery issues
- Provide a summary of filed issues
Dry run (preview what would be filed without creating issues):
python3 file_issues.py --inventory-path ../../../docs/verification-inventory.json --dry-runIssue format (auto-generated by the script):
- Title:
"discovery(docs): <claim text> not verified" - Labels:
tech-debt,docs - Body: Finding, evidence, impact, suggested fix, related links
- Duplicate detection: Searches GitHub before filing to avoid duplicates
Output format
After running, print a summary:
claims-audit complete — 2026-05-26
17 claims checked
✅ wired: 13
⚠️ partial: 3
❌ broken: 1
Discovery issues filed:
- discovery: celery-beat missing from docker-compose — scheduled tasks never fire for Docker users
→ https://github.com/mrveiss/AutoBot-AI/issues/XXXX
Updated:
docs/verification.md
docs/verification-inventory.jsonScheduled execution
This skill is intended to run weekly. Wire it to the background-worker daemon (depends on that daemon issue being shipped) via:
# In celery_app.conf.beat_schedule:
"claims-audit-weekly": {
"task": "tasks.claims_audit.run",
"schedule": crontab(day_of_week="sunday", hour=2, minute=0),
}Until the daemon is available, run manually:
claude /claims-auditNotes
- Only walk
docs/andREADME.mdfor claims — do not grep source code for claims (implementation is the evidence, not the source of claims) - Preserve existing claim IDs in
verification-inventory.jsonto maintain stable references - If a claim has
status: "wired"and nothing has changed, re-verify quickly and updategenerated_atonly - The discovery-issue body must include a "Suggested fix" section — do not file empty or vague issues
- Link
verification.mdline numbers to file:line anchors using#LNNsyntax for IDE navigation
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.

