Audit Review

What It Does

Runs a systematic quality audit over a captured diff using up to three specialized prompts — code quality, security, and error handling — then synthesizes the findings into a gate decision (clean / minor issues / critical issues). Shared by the smart-submit and gt-amend skills so the audit prompt text and gating logic live in one place instead of being duplicated per caller.

When to Use

• Invoked by smart-submit or gt-amend during their Phase 2 (Audit) step, never directly by a user.
• Not a standalone entry point — the caller is responsible for capturing the diff, deciding whether to skip the audit (--no-verify, audit.skip_on_draft), and acting on the gate decision this skill returns.

Usage

The caller passes in:

• $DIFF_OUTPUT — the captured diff to audit (see the caller's own "Capture the Diff Once" step)
• $GW_AUDIT_AGENTS — the number of agents to spawn, 1-3 (already clamped by the caller's Phase 0 convention-file parsing)

Determine which prompts to run: if the count is 1, run only quick-code-review. If 2, run quick-code-review and quick-security-scan. If 3, run all three.

This skill is used identically by both hosts through Phase 1 below; Phase 2 (dispatch mechanism) differs by host.

Phase 1: Prompt Bodies

quick-code-review:

Analyze the following uncommitted diff for:

1. Mock/stub code in production paths
2. Placeholder or TODO implementations that shouldn't be committed
3. Commented-out code blocks
4. Obvious logic errors

Diff:

$DIFF_OUTPUT

Report findings as a list with file:line references. If nothing found, say "CLEAN".

quick-security-scan:

Scan the following uncommitted diff for:

1. Hardcoded credentials, API keys, tokens, or secrets
2. Private keys or certificates
3. PII exposure (emails, passwords in plaintext)
4. .env files or sensitive config being committed

Diff:

$DIFF_OUTPUT

Be extremely strict. Report findings with file:line references. If nothing found, say "CLEAN".

quick-error-check:

Analyze the following uncommitted diff for:

1. Empty catch/except blocks
2. Swallowed errors (caught but not logged or re-thrown)
3. Fallback values without logging
4. Missing error boundaries or error handling

Diff:

$DIFF_OUTPUT

Report findings with file:line references. If nothing found, say "CLEAN".

Phase 2: Dispatch (host-specific)

On Claude Code

Use the Agent tool to launch the selected prompts in parallel in a single message, one general-purpose sub-agent per prompt, passing $DIFF_OUTPUT as context.

On Codex

Unverified — confirm before relying on this in production (delegation syntax not yet confirmed against a live Codex session; see docs/solutions/integration-issues/codex-plugin-manifest-and-hook-contract.md). Delegate each selected prompt to a separate worker agent invocation, running concurrently if the host supports it, otherwise sequentially.

Phase 3: Gate Check

First, verify all spawned/dispatched prompts completed successfully. If any failed or timed out, report to the caller which audit is missing so it can ask the user (via AskUserQuestion on Claude Code, or a numbered-option reply on Codex) whether to proceed with partial results or abort.

Synthesize findings from all completed prompts into one of:

• CRITICAL ISSUES (secrets, production mocks, silent failures) — return this verdict with the blocking findings (file:line references) to the caller. The caller is responsible for the user-facing gate ("Fix issues before submitting" / "Submit anyway" / "Abort" — presented via its host's question mechanism) — this skill does not prompt the user directly, since both callers need slightly different wording for their respective actions (submit vs. amend).
• MINOR ISSUES (TODOs, style, minor logic) — return the warnings; the caller proceeds but surfaces them in its own output.
• CLEAN — return a clean verdict; the caller proceeds automatically.

Success Criteria

• The correct number of prompts (1-3, per $GW_AUDIT_AGENTS) ran against $DIFF_OUTPUT
• All completed-prompt findings synthesized into a single CRITICAL / MINOR / CLEAN verdict with file:line references preserved
• Dispatch failures reported back to the caller rather than silently swallowed
• The caller retains ownership of the user-facing gate decision (this skill never prompts the user itself)