Results for “audit-findings”

Launches four parallel read-only sub-agents to review a git diff or file scope for regressions, security risks, performance issues, and contract gaps, then aggregates findings into a prioritized fix path.

| Use when reviewing an incoming GitHub pull request — runs the multi-level (L1-L5) audit against the PR's real diff range, posts findings as one batched review (inline, summary, or local-only), offers the standard fix chain on NEEDS_FIX, and optionally merges. The maintainer-side counterpart to /hyperflow:issue. Trigger with /hyperflow:pr, "review PR #N", "review this pull request <url>", "audit the PR", "check this contribution".

Use this skill when the user asks about International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) compliance — quarterly returns, jurisdiction reporting, fuel + miles reconciliation, IFTA-100/101 forms, base jurisdiction selection, IFTA license + decals, recordkeeping requirements, common IFTA audit findings, or how to handle non-IFTA jurisdictions. Cite IFTA Articles of Agreement.

Reconstruct a product flow, then audit how usable it is — whether it makes sense, where users get confused or stuck, whether the copy and instructions are clear, and where friction causes drop-off. Produces a prioritized, severity-weighted findings report. Works from three inputs: frontend code in a repo, a live running app driven via a browser, or a written flow / spec / screenshots. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a UX review, usability audit, "is this flow confusing", "does this signup/onboarding/checkout make sense", "why are people dropping off", "audit this form", "where's the friction", or hands over a flow and asks whether it's user-friendly. Trigger even on casual phrasings ("is my checkout any good?") — it imposes the structure ad-hoc UX opinions miss. Audits flow usability and friction; for visual polish and interface quality the impeccable audit/critique skills apply instead.

Verify a GitHub pull request against a Jira issue's goals, requirements, and acceptance criteria, then post a PR comment with the findings. Use when a user asks Codex or MoonMind to compare a PR to a Jira story/task/bug, confirm whether a PR satisfies Jira requirements, audit implementation coverage from Jira, or publish a Jira-vs-PR verification summary.

Perform a structured audit of a codebase covering security, code quality, performance, dependencies, architecture, and testing hygiene, then produce a prioritized findings report. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a code review, code audit, security review, codebase assessment, "look over this repo", "what's wrong with this codebase", legacy-code triage, pre-acquisition technical due diligence, or any request to systematically evaluate the health of a project. Trigger even when the user is casual ("can you eyeball my repo?") — this skill imposes the structure that ad-hoc review misses. This skill audits a whole repository at a point in time — for reviewing a diff or PR use the built-in code-review skill; for security checks on pending changes use security-review.

After a Content Factory run completes successfully, harvest prompts, character references, cost data, and quality scores; diff them against the canonical prompt_registry and character_identity store; open improvement PRs (prompt updates + new character references). Runs ONCE per successful run, then closes. Also files findings into a CF_IMPROVER_ISSUES.csv (Intelliverse audit framework pattern) for the librarian's weekly roll-up.

Scan a codebase, live app, or site and find the features that obviously should exist but don't — missing exports, bulk actions, search/filter, undo, history, notifications, dead-end workflows, data collected but never surfaced, backend endpoints with no UI, and half-built features that stopped partway. Produces an evidence-backed, ranked punch list (top 10 max) with a portable gap_packet JSON. Use whenever the user asks "what features are missing", "what's this app lacking", "find gaps", "run gap-scan", "feature audit", or wants proposal ammo from a prospect's app. Also use it to recheck an existing gap_packet — "what's left to do", "recheck the gaps", "what got built since" — re-verifying findings against current code and marking stale ones superseded. Flags ABSENCE only — broken code goes to code-audit, confusing flows to ux-audit, weak persuasion to conversion-audit, underexploited assets to a WWBD-style analysis. If something exists but is bad, it's not a gap — hand it off.

Read-only diagnostic that scans Claude Code session transcripts to surface which MCP servers and tools you actually use, ranked by call frequency, with zero-use servers flagged for removal. Use when planning an MCP cleanup, evaluating whether to keep a newly-added server, deciding which servers warrant token cost in the catalog, or before authoring an MCP-removal PR. Outputs a markdown report (last N days) — does not modify any settings. Pair with the manual `claude mcp remove <name>` step once findings are reviewed.

Hard readiness gate before implementation begins — cross-checks the constitution, feature spec, plan, and tasks for consistency, traceability, and unresolved ambiguity. Returns PASS or FAIL with specific findings. Load when the spec-driven-development orchestrator routes /analyze, when the user asks to cross-check spec vs plan, audit traceability, verify spec readiness, gate-check before implementation, or says "is this spec implementation-ready", "trace requirements to tasks", "/analyze", "spec sanity check", "spec readiness gate", "spec consistency check". Output: docs/reviews/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-spec-crosscheck.md.

Federal Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) sweeper backed by FAR Subpart 9.5 (9.501-9.508) and the active Theseus workspace knowledge graph. USE WHEN the user asks about OCI risk on a bid, organizational conflicts, incumbent conflicts, biased ground rules, unequal access to information, impaired objectivity, or any pre-bid OCI due diligence. Pulls `company`, `incumbent`, `subcontractor`, `customer`, `program_office`, and prior-contract relationships from the workspace KG, classifies each potential conflict into one of the three FAR 9.505 classes (biased ground rules, unequal access, impaired objectivity), and emits a structured findings envelope with mitigation recommendations (firewall, NDA, recusal, novation). DO NOT USE FOR FAR clause coverage audit (use `compliance-auditor`), proposal prose (use `proposal-generator`), competitor research (use `competitive-intel`), or pricing (use `price-to-win`).

Decision-grade entity research skill — produces a hypothesis-tested dossier on a specific company, person, nonprofit, or government org, not a generic profile. Forcing intake makes the user state their hypothesis upfront (what they already believe and want to verify or disprove) so the dossier tests it rather than confirms it. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict on the hypothesis, identity facts, 12-month activity timeline, network and reputation signals, red flags, conversation hooks tied to specific findings, and source-provenance audit log. Uses WebSearch + WebFetch + free APIs (SEC EDGAR, GitHub, ProPublica) as workhorses; optional BYOK MCPs enhance coverage. Use when the user asks for background research, diligence, or meeting prep on a specific entity (e.g., 'prep me for a meeting with [person/company]', 'due diligence on [company]'). Honors sensitivity exclusions for journalism + personal-vetting contexts.

Applies Han's shared Human-Readable Output Standard to a target you already have — a file on disk, text pasted into the prompt, or a draft already produced in the conversation — by dispatching the readability-editor to rewrite its prose so the main point comes first, headings are descriptive, each paragraph carries one idea, and sentences stay short and active, while preserving every fact. Use when you want to make a document or draft readable, edit or polish prose for readability, clean up writing, tighten wording, or re-apply the readability standard to something already written. Rewrites prose only, leaving code, diagrams, and citation identifiers unchanged. Does not write new feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not restructure code or review it — use refactor to restructure code and code-review to audit it. Does not judge the underlying work or raise findings; it only rewrites the writing.

Produces a human-readable, progressive-disclosure overview of unfamiliar code or a pull request's changes — why it exists (the real problem it solves or goal it serves for the business or a user), and from there what it does, how it flows, and where to start — so you can get up to speed before working on or reviewing it. Use when you want to understand, get oriented in, make sense of, explain, or get up to speed on a chunk of code, a file, a directory, a symbol, or a PR's changes. Writes the overview to a scratch file and changes no code. Does not review code quality or raise findings — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting them. Does not produce durable feature or system documentation — use project-documentation. Does not assess architecture or structural risk — use architectural-analysis. Does not diagnose bugs or root-cause failures — use investigate. Does not pace a person through the code one step at a time in conversation — use code-walkthrough.