Audit Code
Overview
Run an expert-panel audit with strict sequencing and one unified output document.
Produce findings first, sorted by severity, with file references, exploit/perf/flow impact, and actionable fixes.
Load references/audit-framework.md before starting the analysis.
Required Inputs
Collect or infer the following:
- Audit scope: paths, modules, PR diff, or whole repository.
- Product context: PRD/spec/user stories, trust boundaries, and critical business flows.
- Runtime context: deployment model, queue/cron/background jobs, traffic profile, data sensitivity, and abuse assumptions.
- Constraints: timeline, acceptable risk, and preferred remediation style.
If product context is missing, state assumptions explicitly and continue.
Team Roles
Use exactly these roles:
- Security expert
- Performance expert
- UX expert
- DX expert
- Edge case master
- Tie-breaker team lead
The tie-breaker lead resolves conflicts, prioritizes issues, and produces the final single report.
Workflow
Follow this sequence every time:
Build Context
Read code + product flows. Identify assets, entry points, high-risk operations, privileged actions, external dependencies, and "failure hurts" journeys.
Build Invariant Coverage Matrix
Before specialist pass 1, map critical invariants to every mutating path (HTTP routes, webhooks, async jobs, scripts):
- Data-link invariants: multi-table relationships that must remain consistent.
- Auth lifecycle invariants: disable/revoke semantics for sessions/tokens/API keys.
- Input/transport invariants: validation, content-type policy, body-size/parse behavior.
- Shape invariants: trees/graphs must reject cycles where applicable.
Treat missing parity across equivalent paths as a finding candidate.
- Pass 1 Specialist Reviews
Run role-specific analysis in this order:
- Security
- Performance
- UX
- DX
- Edge case master
Capture findings using the schema in
references/audit-framework.md.
- Tie-Breaker Reconciliation
Resolve disagreements:
- Decide whether contested items are true issues.
- Set severity and confidence.
- Remove duplicates and merge overlapping findings.
- Cross-Review Pass 2
After edge-case findings, rerun specialists:
- Security/Performance/UX/DX reassess prior findings and new edge-triggered scenarios.
- Edge case master performs a final pass on residual risk after proposed mitigations.
- Final Report
Publish one document from the tie-breaker lead with:
- Findings first (ordered by severity, then blast radius, then exploitability).
- Open questions/assumptions.
- Remediation plan with priority, owner type, and verification tests.
- Short executive summary at the end.
Quality Bar
Enforce these requirements:
- Use concrete evidence with file references and line numbers where available.
- Include reproduction steps for security/performance/edge findings when feasible.
- Prefer actionable fixes over abstract advice.
- Separate confirmed defects from speculative risks.
- Mark confidence for each finding.
- Run a cross-route consistency sweep: equivalent endpoints/jobs must enforce equivalent invariants.
- For each High/Critical finding, include at least one focused regression test/check.
Safety and Policy Guardrails
Apply these guardrails while auditing:
- Do not provide operational abuse instructions or exploit weaponization details.
- Evaluate manipulative UX patterns as legal/trust/reputation risk, not as recommended growth tactics.
- Prioritize user safety, system integrity, and maintainable engineering outcomes.
Output Format
Follow this response structure:
Findings
List only validated issues. Use the finding schema in references/audit-framework.md.
Open Questions / Assumptions
State missing context that could change priority or validity.
Change Summary
Summarize high-impact remediation themes in a few lines.
Suggested Verification
List focused tests/checks to confirm each major fix.
Runtime Heuristics
When the target stack is Bun + SQLite, apply the runtime-specific checklist in references/audit-framework.md (Runtime-Specific Heuristics (Bun + SQLite)) before finalizing findings.
1---2name: audit-code-23description: Run a two-pass, multidisciplinary code audit led by a tie-breaker lead, combining security, performance, UX, DX, and edge-case analysis into one prioritized report with concrete fixes. Use when the user asks to audit code, perform a deep review, stress-test a codebase, or produce a risk-ranked remediation plan across backend, frontend, APIs, infra scripts, and product flows.4---5
6# Audit Code
7
8## Overview
9
10Run an expert-panel audit with strict sequencing and one unified output document.
11Produce findings first, sorted by severity, with file references, exploit/perf/flow impact, and actionable fixes.
12
13Load `references/audit-framework.md` before starting the analysis.
14
15## Required Inputs
16
17Collect or infer the following:
18- Audit scope: paths, modules, PR diff, or whole repository.
19- Product context: PRD/spec/user stories, trust boundaries, and critical business flows.
20- Runtime context: deployment model, queue/cron/background jobs, traffic profile, data sensitivity, and abuse assumptions.
21- Constraints: timeline, acceptable risk, and preferred remediation style.
22
23If product context is missing, state assumptions explicitly and continue.
24
25## Team Roles
26
27Use exactly these roles:
28- Security expert
29- Performance expert
30- UX expert
31- DX expert
32- Edge case master
33- Tie-breaker team lead
34
35The tie-breaker lead resolves conflicts, prioritizes issues, and produces the final single report.
36
37## Workflow
38
39Follow this sequence every time:
40
411. Build Context
42Read code + product flows. Identify assets, entry points, high-risk operations, privileged actions, external dependencies, and "failure hurts" journeys.
43
442. Build Invariant Coverage Matrix
45Before specialist pass 1, map critical invariants to every mutating path (HTTP routes, webhooks, async jobs, scripts):
46- Data-link invariants: multi-table relationships that must remain consistent.
47- Auth lifecycle invariants: disable/revoke semantics for sessions/tokens/API keys.
48- Input/transport invariants: validation, content-type policy, body-size/parse behavior.
49- Shape invariants: trees/graphs must reject cycles where applicable.
50Treat missing parity across equivalent paths as a finding candidate.
51
523. Pass 1 Specialist Reviews
53Run role-specific analysis in this order:
54- Security
55- Performance
56- UX
57- DX
58- Edge case master
59Capture findings using the schema in `references/audit-framework.md`.
60
614. Tie-Breaker Reconciliation
62Resolve disagreements:
63- Decide whether contested items are true issues.
64- Set severity and confidence.
65- Remove duplicates and merge overlapping findings.
66
675. Cross-Review Pass 2
68After edge-case findings, rerun specialists:
69- Security/Performance/UX/DX reassess prior findings and new edge-triggered scenarios.
70- Edge case master performs a final pass on residual risk after proposed mitigations.
71
726. Final Report
73Publish one document from the tie-breaker lead with:
74- Findings first (ordered by severity, then blast radius, then exploitability).
75- Open questions/assumptions.
76- Remediation plan with priority, owner type, and verification tests.
77- Short executive summary at the end.
78
79## Quality Bar
80
81Enforce these requirements:
82- Use concrete evidence with file references and line numbers where available.
83- Include reproduction steps for security/performance/edge findings when feasible.
84- Prefer actionable fixes over abstract advice.
85- Separate confirmed defects from speculative risks.
86- Mark confidence for each finding.
87- Run a cross-route consistency sweep: equivalent endpoints/jobs must enforce equivalent invariants.
88- For each High/Critical finding, include at least one focused regression test/check.
89
90## Safety and Policy Guardrails
91
92Apply these guardrails while auditing:
93- Do not provide operational abuse instructions or exploit weaponization details.
94- Evaluate manipulative UX patterns as legal/trust/reputation risk, not as recommended growth tactics.
95- Prioritize user safety, system integrity, and maintainable engineering outcomes.
96
97## Output Format
98
99Follow this response structure:
100
1011. Findings
102List only validated issues. Use the finding schema in `references/audit-framework.md`.
103
1042. Open Questions / Assumptions
105State missing context that could change priority or validity.
106
1073. Change Summary
108Summarize high-impact remediation themes in a few lines.
109
1104. Suggested Verification
111List focused tests/checks to confirm each major fix.
112
113## Runtime Heuristics
114
115When the target stack is Bun + SQLite, apply the runtime-specific checklist in `references/audit-framework.md` (`Runtime-Specific Heuristics (Bun + SQLite)`) before finalizing findings.