agentleFS
mrveissmrveiss/AutoBot-AI/.claude/skills/claims-audit/SKILL.md

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

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. amkisko/prayers★ 2same name
    2. 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.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Run this after any significant feature addition, deletion, or docs change to keep the verification artifact current.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    After merging a feature PR to verify the capability is actually reachable

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    After docs updates to check for drift between claims and implementation

    line 21
  4. Distinctive:

    When a capability is reported broken

    line 23
  5. Distinctive:

    Update the Summary table counts at the top.

    line 79
  6. Very specific:

    Use the file_issues.py script to automatically file issues for all broken claims:

    line 83
  7. Distinctive:

    Check GitHub for duplicate issues

    line 93
  8. Distinctive:

    Update the inventory with the filed issue URL

    line 95
  9. Distinctive:

    After running, print a summary:

    line 112
  10. Very specific:

    Only walk docs/ and README.md for claims — do not grep source code for claims (implementation is the evidence, not the source of claims)

    line 150
  11. Very specific:

    If a claim has status: "wired" and nothing has changed, re-verify quickly and update generated_at only

    line 152

≈ “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

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-audit

When 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:

  1. README.md — extract every bullet under "Features at a Glance", "Core Services", and "What AutoBot Does"
  2. docs/architecture/ — extract capability claims (services described as running, APIs described as exposed)
  3. docs/developer/ — extract capability claims (SDK, plugin system, NPU, fleet management)
  4. 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):

CheckMethodEvidence kind
API endpointgrep -rn "^@router|^@app" autobot-backend/api/ --include="*.py" matching the capabilityendpoint
Router registrationGrep autobot-backend/initialization/router_registry/ for the module pathrouter
Docker serviceGrep docker-compose.yml for a service matching the capability nameservice
Test filefind autobot-backend/ -name "*test*.py" -o -name "test_*.py" matching the capabilitytest
Implementationfind autobot-backend/ -name "*.py" matching the capabilityimplementation

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.json

The script will:

  • Load the inventory from docs/verification-inventory.json
  • For each claim with status: "broken" and no discovery_issue field:
    • Check GitHub for duplicate issues
    • File a new discovery issue with labels tech-debt and docs
    • 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-run

Issue 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.json

Scheduled 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-audit

Notes

  • Only walk docs/ and README.md for claims — do not grep source code for claims (implementation is the evidence, not the source of claims)
  • Preserve existing claim IDs in verification-inventory.json to maintain stable references
  • If a claim has status: "wired" and nothing has changed, re-verify quickly and update generated_at only
  • The discovery-issue body must include a "Suggested fix" section — do not file empty or vague issues
  • Link verification.md line numbers to file:line anchors using #LNN syntax for IDE navigation

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.