aibot88 Audit vs fix discipline
Audits produce findings. Fixes happen separately, on explicit user request.
Violating the letter of this rule violates the spirit. "Just one quick fix while I'm here" is the failure mode this skill exists to prevent.
Triggers — apply this skill when the user says
audit, review, investigate, check, scan, look at, look over, go through, inspect, find issues in, what's wrong with, how's the X looking, is the X any good, tell me about the X.
If the request contains BOTH a diagnostic verb AND an explicit fix verb (audit and fix, review and clean up, find and fix), the user has authorised fixes — discipline does not apply; proceed normally.
The discipline
While in audit mode you MUST:
- Use read-only tools only. Read, Grep, Glob, Bash for read-only commands. NO Edit, Write, or mutating Bash. Sub-agents you dispatch inherit this constraint — say so in the prompt.
- Produce tiered findings. Every finding gets a severity label:
- P0 — broken behaviour, security, data loss, build/test failures.
- P1 — correctness risk, performance, missing types, dead code with side effects.
- P2 — style, naming, nits, harmless dead code.
- Cite
file:linefor every finding. No findings without locations. - Separate findings from suggestions. Refactor proposals ("split this into 5 files") are a separate section labelled "Suggested follow-ups" — NOT mixed into findings.
- End with an explicit ask.
Want me to fix any of these? Specify by number, severity tier, or "fix all P0".Then stop.
Calibration
A clean audit is a valid outcome. Empty tiers are signal — P0: none is fine, and you must NEVER manufacture findings to fill them. The primary failure mode of LLM reviewers is inventing issues to seem thorough; it erodes trust and wastes the user's time more than missing a real finding does.
Confidence gate: ≥80% sure it's a real problem, or drop it. If the only reason you're flagging something is "it might be an issue", that's the failure mode the user reads as "inventing issues". Speculation belongs in Suggested follow-ups, not in a tiered finding.
Pre-report 4-question check. Before adding any finding to a tier, answer:
- Can I cite the exact
file:line? - Can I describe the concrete failure mode (what input + state produces what wrong outcome)?
- Have I read enough surrounding context (callers, imports, related tests) to be sure?
- Is the severity defensible — P0 = broken/exploitable now, P1 = correctness/perf risk under realistic conditions, P2 = a nit a senior would mention casually?
If any answer is "no" → drop the finding or downgrade to a follow-up suggestion.
Pre-filtered exclusion list — do NOT flag:
- "Consider adding error handling" when the framework or callers already handle it
- "Magic numbers" for well-known constants (HTTP 200/404, port 80/443, 60 for seconds, 1024 for KiB)
- "Missing JSDoc / comments" on self-describing helpers
- "Function too long" for switch tables, test fixtures, or data-shape declarations
- "N+1 queries" on fixed-cardinality loops or with batching already in place
- "Math.random()" in non-cryptographic contexts
- "Null dereference" where TS narrowing or type guards exist
- Style preferences unless the project explicitly enforces them
- Issues a linter would already catch (out of audit scope unless asked)
- Speculative "this could be cleaner" without a concrete failure mode
Apply this exclusion list before running the 4-question check.
Counterintuitive caveat (research): elaborate review prompts INCREASE false positives. Don't enumerate every potential mismatch, don't ask for long rationales — that pressure biases toward over-criticism. Stay terse, gate hard, drop liberally.
Forbidden during audit
- Editing any file. Even "obvious" typos.
- Running
git add,git commit, or any state-changing git command. - Bundling fixes into the audit report ("I've fixed the P0s and listed the rest…").
- Saying a finding is "pre-existing", "unrelated", "out of scope", or "not worth fixing" as a way to skip it. Report it at the appropriate tier and let the user decide.
Rationalisation table
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It's a one-line fix, faster to just do it." | The user can read a one-line fix from a finding. The cost is consistency, not keystrokes. |
| "Critical security bug — has to be fixed now." | Report it as P0 with the proposed fix in the body. User decides timing. |
| "Lint errors are pre-existing, not part of this audit." | If you see them, report them at P1. The user asked you to audit — that includes whatever you find. |
| "The user clearly meant to fix it." | If they meant fix, they'd say fix. Ambiguous prompts default to audit mode. |
| "I'll just fix the trivial ones and report the rest." | This is the most common violation. Don't. |
| "I'll batch the audit and the fixes into one response to save round-trips." | Round-trips are the point. The audit is a checkpoint for scope. |
| "The diff is small enough that the audit + fix is one logical change." | The audit is the deliverable. The fix is a separate deliverable. |
| "I should fill in P1/P2 to look thorough." | Empty tiers are valid signal. "P0: none" is a correct result. Manufactured findings erode trust. |
| "It might be an issue, I'll flag it just in case." | If you're <80% sure, drop it. Speculation belongs in Suggested follow-ups, not findings. |
Red flags — STOP and re-anchor
- About to call
EditorWriteduring an audit. - About to type "I've gone ahead and…" or "while I was at it…".
- About to call something "pre-existing" or "out of scope" without naming it.
- About to add a "Suggested split" or refactor proposal in the same list as the findings.
- About to skip the "Want me to fix any of these?" closer.
- About to add a finding because a tier "looks empty".
- About to flag something with "could be cleaner" / "might want to consider" but no concrete failure mode.
Each of these means: STOP. Go back to findings-only mode.
Output template
## Audit: <scope> — <criteria>
### P0 (blocking)
- `path/to/file.ts:42` — <one-line finding>. <one-sentence why it matters>.
### P1 (quality / correctness risk)
- `path/to/file.ts:88` — ...
### P2 (nits)
- `path/to/file.ts:120` — ...
### Suggested follow-ups (not findings)
- Optional: bigger refactor ideas surfaced by the audit, clearly separated.
---
Want me to fix any of these? Specify by number, by tier ("fix all P0"), or by file.
If a tier is empty, say "P0: none" — don't omit the header. Empty headers are signal.
When NOT to use
- User explicitly authorises fixes: "audit and fix", "find and clean up", "review and patch".
- User has set context like "we're in fix mode" earlier in the session.
- The diagnostic was a single concrete question ("is
foo()broken?") with a one-shot answer — no formal audit needed.
Common mistakes
- Mixing tiers in one bullet list. Tiers exist so the user can triage. Collapse them and you've defeated the point.
- Burying P0s under P2 nits. P0 first, always.
- No final ask. Without the closer, the user is left guessing whether you're waiting or done.
- Counting refactor proposals as findings. A finding is "this is wrong". A proposal is "this could be better-shaped". Different sections.
- Filling tiers to seem thorough. "P0: none" is a valid result. Inventing nits to populate P2 is the same failure mode as inventing P0s — it erodes trust.
- Speculation dressed up as a finding. "Could maybe be cleaner" / "might want to consider X" without a concrete failure mode → drop it or move to Suggested follow-ups.
Per-project override
Before producing findings, check the project root for REVIEW.md. If present, read it — its calibration overrides this skill's defaults. Common overrides:
- Redefining what counts as Important (P0/P1) vs Nit (P2) for the specific codebase
- Exclusion lists tailored to the project (e.g. shell-script demos, doc/config repos, prototypes)
- Scope restrictions (e.g. "this is an educational mirror; don't flag missing test coverage")
When REVIEW.md and this skill disagree, REVIEW.md wins — it's the user's per-project policy.