AGENT SKILL

audit-code

Self-review checklist for the coding agent to run before dispatching a reviewer. Checks CONVENTIONS.md compliance, Boy Scout Rule, test coverage, types, and SOLID. Produces a pass/fail checklist. Use before request-review, before committing, or when user asks for a code quality check.

License 许可
MIT
最近更新
2026-11-10
Stars
★ 289
Forks
24

01 前言 Front Matter

name
audit-code
model
haiku
effort
standard
description
Self-review checklist for the coding agent to run before dispatching a reviewer. Checks CONVENTIONS.md compliance, Boy Scout Rule, test coverage, types, and SOLID. Produces a pass/fail checklist. Use before request-review, before committing, or when user asks for a code quality check.

02 资源文件 1

03 SKILL.md 正文

Audit Code

HARD GATE — Audit must check for: bugs (correctness), security, performance, and clarity. Do NOT skip security review if the code touches user data, auth, or external APIs.

Target (argument)

If an argument was passed after /audit (e.g. /audit abc1234 or /audit HEAD~3..HEAD), use it as the diff target:

git diff <arg>        # range or two-ref form: abc..def, HEAD~3..HEAD
git show <arg>        # single commit: abc1234

If no argument was given, review uncommitted working-tree changes (git diff + git diff --staged).

Run this self-review before asking anyone else to look at the code. The goal is to catch everything that is clearly wrong or missing — so the reviewer can focus on design and architecture, not hygiene.

Distinct from request-review: This is the coding agent checking its own work. No second agent is involved. Run this first; run request-review after this passes.

Look-here-first (churn heuristic)

Before the checklist, rank changed files by git churn and review high-churn hotspots first — they carry the most latent risk regardless of diff size.

bash scripts/bp-churn-rank.sh --since 90.days --limit 15

Apply the full checklist to churn-ranked files in descending order. Files with zero recent commits but large diffs still get reviewed; churn only sets priority, not scope.

Modes

  • Default: full checklist
  • --quick: Run only Supply Chain and Test Coverage. Use for changes under 50 LOC.
  • --gate: Non-interactive mode for automated CI gating (used by build-epic step 6). Exit with non-zero status code (exit 1) on ANY checklist failure; exit 0 only if ALL items pass. Produces a compact pass/fail summary to stderr. On failure, list every ✗ item with reason.
  • --parallel: Run checklist sections in isolated git worktrees (e45s18) so concurrent checks cannot corrupt each other's working tree:
bash scripts/lib/parallel-review-worktrees.sh audit-code

Checklist

Supply Chain & Security

  • [ ] slopcheck run for new dependencies; packages tagged in plan-work: [OK], [SUS], or [SLOP]
  • [ ] No [SLOP] packages without documented human approval
  • [ ] No secrets in diff (sk-, ghp_, AKIA, .env values) — see guard-git patterns
  • [ ] OWASP Top 10 spot-check: injection, broken auth, sensitive data exposure, misconfiguration (see docs/references/security-threats.md)
  • [ ] Security: diff scanned — no unaddressed HIGH findings (or deviations documented in specs/security/EXCEPTIONS.md)

Provenance & Metadata

  • [ ] New plan artefacts include type: and context: metadata
  • [ ] Implementation steps reference ADR or commit SHA where decisions were made

Law of Demeter

  • [ ] No method chains through unrelated objects (e.g. a.getB().getC().doX())
  • [ ] Collaborators talk to immediate neighbors only; law violations need explicit justification

CONVENTIONS.md Compliance

  • [ ] All output files are in specs/ (no docs written to project root)
  • [ ] No gh issue create calls anywhere in new/modified skills or scripts
  • [ ] gh used only for PRs and repo clone operations
  • [ ] No GitHub REST API called directly (no curl/fetch to api.github.com)

Scope

  • [ ] Changes are limited to what was asked — nothing extra refactored or reorganized
  • [ ] No speculative features added
  • [ ] No files touched outside the stated scope
  • [ ] Discovered defects: Reproducible gate failures (Preflight, CI, golden suite) require fix-or-log — quick-fix or fix-bug — even when "outside" the story scope. Scope-minimization does not waive Always Green.
  • [ ] Boy Scout Rule applies to files opened to fix a gate failure; it does not excuse skipping red Preflight

Boy Scout Rule

  • [ ] Every file I touched is cleaner than when I found it
  • [ ] No dead code left behind
  • [ ] No commented-out code blocks

Types and Safety

  • [ ] No any types introduced (TypeScript) or untyped public functions (Python/Go/etc.)
  • [ ] No @ts-ignore or // eslint-disable added
  • [ ] No as unknown as X casts that bypass type safety

Test Coverage

  • [ ] Every new function has at least one test
  • [ ] Every bug fix has a regression test
  • [ ] Tests verify behavior through public interfaces (not implementation details)
  • [ ] Tests are F.I.R.S.T compliant (per CONVENTIONS.md §Tests; use enforce-first if unsure)

SOLID and Heuristics

  • [ ] Single Responsibility: no function or module doing two unrelated things
  • [ ] Open/Closed: extended through interfaces, not by modifying stable code
  • [ ] Dependency Inversion: dependencies injected, not imported globally where avoidable
  • [ ] Chapter 17 Heuristics: Code is free of smells documented in audit-code/HEURISTICS.md (G, N, C, T)

Refactoring Smells (Fowler)

Explicitly name any detected smells: Mysterious Name, Duplicated Code, Feature Envy, Data Clumps, Primitive Obsession, Message Chains, Middle Man.

Code Style (CONVENTIONS.md)

  • [ ] Functions: 4–20 lines; split if longer
  • [ ] Functions: descend exactly one level of abstraction (The Stepdown Rule / G34)
  • [ ] Files: under 300 lines (ideally 200–300)
  • [ ] Names: specific and unique (grep returns < 5 hits for each name)
  • [ ] No duplication — shared logic extracted (DRY / G5)
  • [ ] Early returns over nested ifs; max 2 levels of indentation
  • [ ] Conditionals: expressed as positives (G29)
  • [ ] Comments explain WHY, not WHAT

Red Flags

Before reporting, name any rationalization you caught yourself making for skipping a checklist item. Silence is not acceptable — if you skipped an item, state the reason explicitly.

Output

Report the checklist with ✓ / ✗ per item. For each ✗, describe what needs to be fixed.

If all items pass: suggest running request-review for an independent second opinion. If any items fail: fix them before proceeding.

In --gate mode, print one summary line per checklist section (PASS Supply Chain / FAIL Provenance (2 items)). Exit 0 only if all PASS. Write full report to specs/verifications/AUDIT-<epic>-<story>.md.

Verify

→ verify: test -f CONVENTIONS.md && test -d skills/enforce-first && test -d skills/request-review

Handoff

Gate: READY -> next: commit-message Writes: state.yaml handoff.next_skill = commit-message

<!-- story: e01s02 --> <!-- story: e06s03 --> <!-- story: e07s01 -->

04 同仓库更多 Skills