agentleFS
ronniepinnellronniepinnell/casper/skills/sweep/SKILL.md

sweep

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Massive multi-agent audit sweep — the generalized FAB-project pattern. Fans out parallel domain auditors over a whole system (codebase, data stack, spec tree, product surface), adversarially verifies findings, and converges to a graded report where every finding lands as a ticket, gate, or patch. Use for "audit everything", pre-launch reviews, post-chaos reconciliation, or grading a stack against best-in-class.

21 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use incident, adr and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • JkudjoSkill

    incident

    Production incident response — structured triage, hypothesis tree, safe remediation, incident record

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • asterkinSkill

    adr

    Create Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following project standards. Guides template usage, process, and best practices for documenting architecturally significant decisions.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • anombyte93Skill

    discover

    Phase 1 of the prd-taskmaster pipeline: brainstorm-driven discovery. Delegates to superpowers:brainstorming in Interactive Mode (one adaptive question at a time), or self-brainstorms in Autonomous Mode when no user is present. Intercepts before the brainstorming chain hands off to writing-plans — this skill owns the exit. Extracts constraints, calibrates scale (Solo / Team / Enterprise), and advances the pipeline to GENERATE.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • GitHubSkill

    refactor

    Surgical code refactoring to improve maintainability without changing behavior. Covers extracting functions, renaming variables, breaking down god functions, improving type safety, eliminating code smells, and applying design patterns. Less drastic than repo-rebuilder; use for gradual improvements.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    diagnose

    Use to systematically diagnose why scenarios fail — identifies root causes by analyzing agent traces, codebase, and behavioral patterns

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • nicolasestremSkill

    brainstorm

    Structured idea generation and solution exploration with systematic analysis.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 15 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    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. Very specific:

    evidence format: every finding = one line of file:line / query / output proof — no vibes, no "seems like"

    line 50
  2. Very specific:

    Every Critical/High gets a /refute pass by a verifier that did NOT find it: reproduce it or kill it.

    line 64
  3. Distinctive:

    Only CONFIRMED findings may use the word "broken" in the report.

    line 66
  4. Very specific:

    If --grade: score each dimension 1–5 against the best-in-class benchmark for its domain, WITH evidence per score.

    line 75
  5. Distinctive:

    Every confirmed finding lands as exactly one of:

    line 85

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 15 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

/sweep — The Full-System Audit Fan-Out

The pattern behind every high-yield mega-audit (21-agent data audits, FAB-style architecture maps, exit dossiers): decompose into dimensions → independent parallel auditors → adversarial verification → graded synthesis → every finding becomes a mechanism. One agent can't hold a system; a swept fan-out can. This skill is the repeatable harness.

Siblings (if your workflow has them): a per-object forensic review skill goes deep on ONE planning object against its claims; a cleanup skill is fix-first reconciliation. /sweep is breadth-first discovery across a whole system — it FEEDS both.

Invocation

/sweep data stack --grade            # full-stack audit, scored vs best-in-class
/sweep ui/dashboard                  # product-surface sweep
/sweep docs/specs vs src --drift     # spec-vs-reality sweep (mass /drift)
/sweep security                      # one dimension, full depth

Phase 0 — Scope & dimension slate (inline, before any fan-out)

  1. Fix the boundary: what's IN the sweep (paths, schemas, surfaces) and what's explicitly OUT. An unbounded sweep never converges.
  2. Pick dimensions — default slate, prune/extend per scope:
    • correctness (does it do what it claims) · spec-drift (mass /drift)
    • security/permissions · performance/scale · data quality
    • test coverage (real tests, not shells) · architecture/placement (/altitude violations, duplicated owners) · honesty (claimed-done vs actually-done — the completion-audit dimension) · UX/product (if user-facing)
  3. Declare the sweep's own gates (/gate): effort ceiling, and a finding budget ("if >N criticals in dimension X, stop sweeping and start fixing").

Phase 1 — Fan-out (parallel, one auditor per dimension)

Dispatch independent subagents/workflow stages, one per dimension. Each auditor's prompt MUST carry a handoff contract:

  • the dimension's question, the scope boundary, where to look first
  • evidence format: every finding = one line of file:line / query / output proof — no vibes, no "seems like"
  • severity grammar: Critical (wrong results / data loss / security) · High (will bite soon) · Medium (debt) · Low (polish)
  • return findings as structured list, not prose

Auditors are blind to each other — convergent findings from independent auditors are the strongest signal a sweep produces. Note them explicitly.

Phase 2 — Adversarial verification (the step lazy sweeps skip)

Raw findings lie. Before synthesis:

  1. Dedup across dimensions (same root cause surfaces in many coats — use /altitude to name the shared layer).
  2. Every Critical/High gets a /refute pass by a verifier that did NOT find it: reproduce it or kill it. Verdicts: CONFIRMED / REFUTED / PLAUSIBLE.
  3. Only CONFIRMED findings may use the word "broken" in the report. PLAUSIBLE ships in an appendix, clearly labeled.

Phase 3 — Graded synthesis

One report, led by the number that matters:

SWEEP: <scope> | <n> dimensions | X confirmed (C/H/M/L: a/b/c/d) | grade: B-
  • If --grade: score each dimension 1–5 against the best-in-class benchmark for its domain, WITH evidence per score. The grade's job is honesty, not motivation — a B- that's real beats an A that isn't.
  • Convergent findings and systemic patterns first (three dimensions hitting the same subsystem = an /altitude problem, not three bugs).
  • The "what's NOT broken" section is mandatory — a sweep that only lists problems can't be used to decide what's safe to build on.

Phase 4 — Findings become mechanisms (or the sweep was theater)

Every confirmed finding lands as exactly one of:

  • patch (fixed in the sweep's follow-up PRs, smallest first)
  • ticket (filed with the evidence line attached, severity mapped)
  • gate (a tripwire/CI check so the class can't recur — preferred for anything that recurred)
  • accepted risk (/verdict log, named human on the acceptance)

Close by logging the sweep itself: /verdict log SWEEP: <scope> | grade | top systemic finding | date. The next sweep of the same scope starts by diffing against this line — grades that don't move are the real report.

Rules

  • Breadth-first, fix-later. Auditors that stop to fix lose coverage; the single exception is a Critical actively corrupting data — stop the sweep, raise it immediately.
  • Cap the fan-out to what the finding budget can absorb. 21 agents producing 400 findings nobody triages is worse than 6 producing 40 that all land.
  • Sweeps are periodic, not heroic: the value compounds when grade N+1 is compared against grade N.

Composes with

  • /drift (the spec-drift dimension), /refute (Phase 2), /altitude (dedup + systemic naming), /gate (sweep budgets + recurrence tripwires), /verdict (the sweep ledger line). If your workflow has a per-object deep-review or planning-review step, a sweep is its strongest input.

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.