agentleFS
xsovad06xsovad06/sova/.agents/skills/sova-audit-instructions/SKILL.md

sova-audit-instructions

Skill3 starsChanged 6 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Audit CLAUDE.md and project rules for completeness, contradictions, and autonomous-agent readiness.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read every instruction file.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Do NOT invent preferences the project has not demonstrated.

    line 108
  3. Very specific:

    Use make test and make lint for project-specific commands in any templates

    line 112

≈ “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

Audit this project's AI instruction system for completeness, contradictions, implicit assumptions, and autonomous-agent readiness. the arguments provided when this skill is invoked

Phase 1: Collect All Instruction Sources

Read every instruction file. Do not skip any.

cat CLAUDE.md 2>/dev/null || echo "MISSING: CLAUDE.md"
cat AGENTS.md 2>/dev/null || echo "No AGENTS.md"
for f in .claude/rules/*.md; do [ -f "$f" ] && echo "=== $f ===" && cat "$f"; done 2>/dev/null || echo "No rules"
ls .claude/agent-memory/*.md 2>/dev/null || echo "No agent memory"
ls .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md 2>/dev/null || echo "No skills"

Phase 2: Analyze Project Reality

Understand the actual project to compare against instructions:

find . -maxdepth 3 -type f \( -name "*.py" -o -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.go" -o -name "*.rs" -o -name "*.java" \) | head -50
git log --oneline -20 2>/dev/null || echo "Not a git repo"
ls pyproject.toml package.json Cargo.toml go.mod Makefile Dockerfile 2>/dev/null
ls -d tests/ test/ __tests__/ spec/ 2>/dev/null && find tests/ test/ __tests__/ spec/ -maxdepth 1 -name "*.py" -o -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.js" 2>/dev/null | head -20

Phase 3: Gap Analysis

For each category, assess completeness (0-10) and list specific gaps:

CategoryWhat to check
Build commandsAre test_cmd, lint_cmd, format_cmd documented and correct? Do they match actual tooling?
ArchitectureDoes CLAUDE.md explain the module structure? Can an agent navigate the codebase without guessing?
ConventionsAre naming conventions, file organization, and code style rules stated explicitly?
Error handlingAre error handling patterns documented?
TestingAre test patterns, fixtures, mocks, and conventions documented?
DependenciesAre dependency management conventions documented (add/remove/upgrade)?
SecurityAre security-sensitive areas called out (credentials, external inputs, subprocess)?
Agent boundariesAre there clear "always do" / "ask first" / "never do" boundaries?
ContradictionsDo any rules conflict with each other or with actual project practice?
Implicit assumptionsWhat does the project assume that is not written down?

Phase 4: Report

Present findings in this structure:

Instruction Completeness Score: X/100

CategoryScoreKey Gap
Build commandsX/10...
ArchitectureX/10...
ConventionsX/10...
Error handlingX/10...
TestingX/10...
DependenciesX/10...
SecurityX/10...
Agent boundariesX/10...
ContradictionsX/10...
Implicit assumptionsX/10...

Critical Gaps (will cause agent failures):

  • List each with a specific, actionable recommendation

Contradictions Found:

  • List any conflicting instructions with file locations

Implicit Assumptions (undocumented knowledge required to work in this project):

  • List things the project assumes but never states

Phase 5: Propose Improvements

For each gap found, propose a specific addition or edit. Group by target file:

  • CLAUDE.md additions
  • New rule files (.claude/rules/)
  • Existing rule file updates

Present the improvements and ask the user if they want them applied.

Rules

  • Do NOT invent preferences the project has not demonstrated. Only document what exists
  • Preserve the existing voice and style of instructions
  • Where unsure about a convention, ask the user rather than guessing
  • Focus on what an autonomous agent needs to succeed without human guidance
  • Use make test and make lint for project-specific commands in any templates

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.