post-readiness-adversarial-audit
Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Independently challenge an IMPLEMENTATION_READY package after design-to-implementation. Resolve actual artifact paths from workflow state, verify workflow/gate integrity, audit requirement-to-WBS traceability, architecture consistency, negative requirements, boundary exposure, source anchors, and missing work before downstream implementation handoff.
In this repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- adversarial-baseline-auditSkill
- architecture-drift-detectionSkill
- architecture-reconstruction-and-diagramsSkill
- artifact-detailed-designSkill
- baseline-source-of-truth-maintenanceSkill
- claim-verification-and-promotionSkill
- configuration-source-traceSkill
- contract-impact-test-designSkill
- current-state-tdd-synthesisSkill
- design-artifact-decompositionSkill
- design-artifact-decomposition-verificationSkill
- detailed-design-verificationSkill
- full-reverse-engineeringSkill
- implementation-readiness-certificationSkill
- incident-root-cause-analysisSkill
- integration-selection-analysisSkill
- observability-traceability-analysisSkill
- patch-impact-reviewSkill
- persistence-schema-reverse-engineeringSkill
- regression-test-designSkill
- requirement-compliance-reviewSkill
- resolve-high-impact-unknownsSkill
- resume-reverse-engineeringSkill
- reverse-engineering-bootstrapSkill
- reverse-engineering-coverage-auditSkill
- run-engineering-workflowSkill
- runtime-binding-verificationSkill
- runtime-flow-analysisSkill
- technical-design-proposalSkill
- technical-design-verificationSkill
- wbs-generationSkill
- wbs-verificationSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
26 rules. About 0 are common, 23 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈23
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
- Very specific: line 11
Do not trust IMPLEMENTATION_READY merely because the earlier workflow produced it.
- Distinctive: line 37
Do NOT guess a replacement filename or search for a "similar-looking" artifact when an expected path is missing.
- Distinctive: line 40
If a required artifact path cannot be resolved:
- Distinctive: line 54
all implementation-required detailed designs
- Distinctive: line 55
all corresponding DD verification reports
- Distinctive: line 67
Verify the completed run actually passed the required lifecycle rather than merely producing files.
- Distinctive: line 78
every implementation-required DD verification
- Distinctive: line 95
Before sampling anything, inspect every WBS task.
- Distinctive: line 116
Use it when a task's primary deliverable does not belong to the referenced artifact according to the registry / VERIFIED DD.
- Very specific: line 127
If section A says ART-001 = AuditLogger Interface, another section may not treat ART-001 = AuditException unless the registry/DD explicitly …
- Distinctive: line 142
Do not ask the human to manually choose WBS IDs.
- Distinctive: line 150
if duplicate of #1/#2, choose the next highest dependency-count distinct task
- Distinctive: line 152
If the WBS does not expose a usable code-changing classification, use all tasks when task count <= 10.
- Distinctive: line 188
If the report makes an unsupported universal claim from sampled evidence, record:
- Distinctive: line 212
verify the claimed current role/relationship where implementation depends on it
- Distinctive: line 219
No major proposed component may exist only in a diagram.
- Distinctive: line 276
Do not sample one representative endpoint when the boundary has multiple callers.
- Distinctive: line 295
Do not add speculative work.
- Distinctive: line 307
verify exact symbol/path exists
- Distinctive: line 308
verify claimed current role
- Distinctive: line 309
verify source has not drifted from the generated artifact's assumption
- Very specific: line 365
Do not replace failed thresholds with subjective Green/Yellow/Red.
- Distinctive: line 394
all mandatory thresholds pass
- Distinctive: line 395
no HIGH/CRITICAL finding remains
- Distinctive: line 401
Do not call PASS because the package "looks complete".
- Distinctive: line 420
Use the active workflow-declared post-readiness audit output path.
≈ “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
Post-Readiness Adversarial Audit
Mission
Do not trust IMPLEMENTATION_READY merely because the earlier workflow produced it.
This skill independently challenges the completed planning package before downstream implementation handoff.
It is a verification skill, not a design generator and not an implementation skill.
Canonical position:
design-to-implementation
→ IMPLEMENTATION_READY
→ POST-READINESS ADVERSARIAL AUDIT
→ audited handoff1. Input Resolution — No Guessing
Resolve artifact paths in this order:
1. persisted workflow state / execution report
2. explicit workflow inputs
3. exact artifact paths recorded by prior stage gatesDo NOT guess a replacement filename or search for a "similar-looking" artifact when an expected path is missing.
If a required artifact path cannot be resolved:
POST_AUDIT_INPUT_NOT_RESOLVED
Record the exact missing artifact/path.
Required logical inputs:
- authoritative requirement
- current-state analysis
- verified gap analysis
- TDD
- TDD verification
- design artifact registry
- all implementation-required detailed designs
- all corresponding DD verification reports
- WBS
- WBS verification
- test design
- implementation-readiness report
- persisted workflow state/execution report when available
- current repository source
Current source remains authoritative for CURRENT behavior.
2. Workflow / Gate Integrity Audit
Verify the completed run actually passed the required lifecycle rather than merely producing files.
Create:
| Required Stage | Expected Gate | Actual Gate | Artifact Exists? | Gate/Artifact Consistent? | Verdict |
At minimum cover:
- TDD verification
- design artifact decomposition
- every implementation-required DD verification
- WBS generation
- WBS verification
- implementation readiness
Rules:
- file existence alone does not prove stage success
- prose saying "ready" does not replace structured gate evidence
- missing/malformed gate is a finding
- registry status must agree with DD verification artifacts
- WBS/readiness claims must agree with upstream statuses
3. WBS Semantic Consistency + Deterministic Deep Trace
3A. Exhaustive WBS ↔ Artifact Semantic Identity
Before sampling anything, inspect every WBS task.
For each WBS task derive its primary implementation deliverable and verify:
WBS task title / objective / primary deliverable
↔ referenced Artifact ID
↔ canonical registry artifact name + responsibility
↔ VERIFIED DD owned implementation unit
↔ TDD decisionCreate:
| WBS ID | Primary Deliverable | Artifact ID | Canonical Artifact Name | Registry Responsibility | DD-Owned Unit | Semantic Match? | Finding |
Hard failure code:
WBS_ARTIFACT_SEMANTIC_MISMATCH
Use it when a task's primary deliverable does not belong to the referenced artifact according to the registry / VERIFIED DD.
Important:
- Artifact ID existence is not semantic proof.
- A symbol merely appearing in TDD/DD is not ownership proof.
@see, dependency, import, mention, cross-reference, or neighboring design prose does not allow re-labeling an artifact.- The same Artifact ID MUST use the same canonical artifact name/responsibility throughout the report.
- If section A says
ART-001 = AuditLogger Interface, another section may not treatART-001 = AuditExceptionunless the registry/DD explicitly defines that ownership.
Required threshold:
WBS semantic identity consistency = 100% of ALL WBS tasksAny HIGH/CRITICAL semantic mismatch forces:
POST_READINESS_AUDIT_FAIL_WBS_GAPS
3B. Deterministic Deep Backward-Trace Sample
Do not ask the human to manually choose WBS IDs.
Select up to three WBS tasks deterministically from the actual WBS:
- lowest-ID code-changing task
- highest-ID code-changing task
- code-changing task with the highest dependency count
- tie-breaker: lowest WBS ID
- if duplicate of #1/#2, choose the next highest dependency-count distinct task
If the WBS does not expose a usable code-changing classification, use all tasks when task count <= 10; otherwise choose lowest ID, highest ID, and highest dependency-count task.
For each selected task trace:
WBS task
→ VERIFIED Detailed Design
→ Design Artifact registry entry
→ TDD decision
→ Verified Gap
→ Requirement rule
→ CURRENT source anchor (when CURRENT source exists)For PROPOSED_NEW components, verify the proposed location/ownership against the approved design; do not call a non-existent current source path "source verified".
Create:
| Sample | WBS ID | Primary Deliverable | DD | Artifact ID | Canonical Artifact Name | TDD Decision | Gap | Requirement | Source/Proposed Anchor | Broken Link? | Verdict |
A generated artifact is navigation evidence, not proof of CURRENT source.
3C. Sampling Claim Discipline
The deep backward trace above is a sample unless every WBS task was selected.
Therefore:
3/3 sampled WBS tasks passedis valid when three were sampled.all WBS tasks trace back correctlyis forbidden unless all WBS tasks were exhaustively traced.- Universal claims may only come from exhaustive checks, such as the all-task semantic identity audit in §3A.
If the report makes an unsupported universal claim from sampled evidence, record:
AUDIT_CLAIM_EXCEEDS_EVIDENCE
and fail workflow integrity.
4. Proposed Static Architecture Consistency Audit
From the TDD PROPOSED Static Architecture and Component Responsibilities:
For every major PROPOSED_NEW or materially MODIFIED component/type:
TDD static architecture
↔ component responsibilities
↔ design artifact registry
↔ detailed design
↔ WBS task(s)
↔ verification/test obligationsFor every EXISTING component named as an existing source anchor:
- verify it exists
- verify the claimed current role/relationship where implementation depends on it
Create:
| Component | Existing/Proposed | Registry Artifact | DD | WBS Coverage | Test Coverage | Current Source Proof Needed? | Verdict |
No major proposed component may exist only in a diagram.
5. Requirement / Negative-Rule Audit
Enumerate every explicit MUST-NOT / exclusion / preserved-behavior rule from the authoritative requirement and verified gap analysis.
For each one prove:
requirement exclusion
→ TDD preservation mechanism
→ relevant DD
→ WBS impact/non-impact
→ test/verification coverageCreate:
| Exclusion Rule | TDD Mechanism | DD | WBS | Test | Preserved? | Evidence |
Required target:
negative-rule coverage = 100%Any material exclusion without design/test coverage blocks PASS.
6. Boundary → Exposure Re-Audit
Identify every integration/boundary artifact that the verified TDD says is materially changed.
For each affected boundary:
boundary
← ALL direct invocation/construction sites
← ALL material caller chains
← ALL external entry points / proven internal rootsCompare the re-audit result with:
- current-state analysis
- TDD
- artifact registry
- DD
- WBS
- tests
Create:
| Boundary | Source Invocation Sites | External/Internal Roots | TDD Coverage | DD/WBS Coverage | Missing Exposure? | Verdict |
Do not sample one representative endpoint when the boundary has multiple callers.
7. WBS Missing-Work Recheck
Independently challenge the earlier WBS verification.
From verified DD/source impacts search where applicable:
- callers/references
- implementations
- constructors/factories/DI
- serializers/mappers
- configuration consumers
- persistence/migration
- tests/fixtures
- integration adapters
- sibling operations that must preserve behavior
- documentation/config samples required by the approved design
Do not add speculative work.
Create:
| Finding ID | Design Artifact / DD | Source Evidence | Missing WBS Work? | Severity | Required Action |
8. Source-Anchor Health
For all source anchors used by the sampled WBS traces plus every major architecture/boundary decision:
- verify exact symbol/path exists
- verify claimed current role
- verify source has not drifted from the generated artifact's assumption
Record:
VERIFIED
CONTRADICTED
SOURCE_NOT_RESOLVED8A. Cross-Section Canonical Identity Consistency
Build a canonical identity dictionary from the design artifact registry:
Artifact ID → canonical artifact name → responsibility → VERIFIED DDThen scan every audit section/table that mentions an Artifact ID.
Create:
| Artifact ID | Canonical Identity | Observed Labels / Responsibilities | Consistent? | Finding |
Rules:
- one Artifact ID cannot silently change meaning between sections
- a WBS task label does not redefine the artifact
- TDD mentions do not redefine registry ownership
- any semantic contradiction that affects a HIGH/CRITICAL implementation task blocks PASS
Failure code:
CROSS_SECTION_ARTIFACT_IDENTITY_CONTRADICTION
9. Quantitative Audit Scorecard
Report measurable results:
| Metric | Required Threshold | Actual | Pass? |
| Required workflow stages/gates valid | 100% | ... | ... |
| Implementation-required DDs verified | 100% | ... | ... |
| WBS task semantic identity consistency (ALL tasks) | 100% | ... | ... |
| Sampled deep WBS backward traces complete | 100% of selected sample | ... | ... |
| Major proposed architecture components covered by registry/DD/WBS | 100% | ... | ... |
| Explicit negative rules covered | 100% | ... | ... |
| Affected integration boundaries with exposure closure | 100% | ... | ... |
| Sampled/critical current source anchors verified | 100% | ... | ... |
| Artifact ID canonical identity consistent across report | 100% | ... | ... |
| Unresolved source-resolvable CRITICAL | 0 | ... | ... |
| Unresolved source-resolvable HIGH | 0 | ... | ... |
| HIGH/CRITICAL missing-work findings | 0 | ... | ... |
Do not replace failed thresholds with subjective Green/Yellow/Red.
10. Verdict
Use exactly one:
POST_READINESS_AUDIT_PASSPOST_READINESS_AUDIT_PASS_WITH_WARNINGSPOST_READINESS_AUDIT_FAIL_SOURCE_GAPSPOST_READINESS_AUDIT_FAIL_DESIGN_GAPSPOST_READINESS_AUDIT_FAIL_WBS_GAPSPOST_READINESS_AUDIT_FAIL_WORKFLOW_INTEGRITYPOST_AUDIT_INPUT_NOT_RESOLVED
PASS
Requires all mandatory scorecard thresholds to pass.
Additionally:
WBS_ARTIFACT_SEMANTIC_MISMATCHcount must be 0CROSS_SECTION_ARTIFACT_IDENTITY_CONTRADICTIONcount must be 0 for HIGH/CRITICAL implementation workAUDIT_CLAIM_EXCEEDS_EVIDENCEcount must be 0- sampled evidence must never be presented as exhaustive evidence
PASS_WITH_WARNINGS
Allowed only when:
- all mandatory thresholds pass
- no HIGH/CRITICAL finding remains
- warnings are non-blocking and explicitly listed
FAIL
Choose the failure class corresponding to the first material blocking layer. Do not call PASS because the package "looks complete".
11. Mutation Rule
This audit MUST NOT silently edit:
- TDD
- registry
- DD
- WBS
- test design
- readiness report
It reports findings only.
Corrections happen in the owning upstream workflow, then the audit is rerun.
Output
Use the active workflow-declared post-readiness audit output path. Do not reuse legacy audit artifacts.
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.

