Audit Code

Single-Session Code Review Audit

Pre-Audit Validation

Step 1: Check Thresholds

Run npm run review:check and report results. If no thresholds are triggered:

• Display: "⚠️ No review thresholds triggered. Proceed anyway? (This is a lightweight single-session audit)"
• Continue with audit regardless (user invoked intentionally)

Step 2: Gather Current Baselines

Collect these metrics by running commands:

# Test count
npm test 2>&1 | grep -E "Tests:|passing|failed" | head -5

# Lint status
npm run lint 2>&1 | tail -10

# Pattern compliance
npm run patterns:check 2>&1

# Stack versions
grep -E '"(next|react|typescript)"' package.json | head -5

Step 2b: Query SonarCloud (if MCP available)

If mcp__sonarcloud__get_issues is available, fetch current issue counts:

• Query with types: "CODE_SMELL,BUG" and severities: "CRITICAL,MAJOR"
• Compare against baseline in docs/analysis/sonarqube-manifest.md (778 issues as of 2026-01-05)
• Note any significant changes (>10% increase/decrease)

This provides real-time issue data to cross-reference with audit findings.

Step 3: Load False Positives Database

Read docs/audits/FALSE_POSITIVES.jsonl and filter findings matching:

• Category: code
• Expired entries (skip if expires date passed)

Note patterns to exclude from final findings.

Step 4: Check Template Currency

Read docs/templates/MULTI_AI_CODE_REVIEW_PLAN_TEMPLATE.md and verify:

• Stack versions match package.json
• Test count baseline is accurate
• File paths in scope still exist
• Review range in AI_REVIEW_LEARNINGS_LOG.md is current

If outdated, note discrepancies but proceed with current values.

Audit Execution

Focus Areas (7 Categories):

1. Code Hygiene (unused imports, dead code, console.logs)
2. Types & Correctness (any types, type safety, null checks)
3. Framework Best Practices (React patterns, Next.js conventions)
4. Testing Coverage (untested functions, missing edge cases)
5. Security Surface (input validation, auth checks)
6. AICode (AI-Generated Code Failure Modes):
   • "Happy-path only" logic, missing edge cases and error handling
   • Tests that exist but don't assert meaningful behavior
   • Hallucinated dependencies/APIs that don't exist
   • Copy/paste anti-patterns (similar code blocks that should be abstracted)
   • Inconsistent architecture patterns across files
   • Overly complex functions (deep nesting, >50 lines)
7. Debugging (Debugging Ergonomics) (NEW - 2026-01-13):
   • Correlation IDs / request tracing (frontend to backend)
   • Structured logging with context (not just console.log)
   • Sentry/error tracking integration completeness
   • Error messages include actionable fix hints
   • Offline/network status captured in error context

For each category:

1. Search relevant files using Grep/Glob
2. Identify specific issues with file:line references
3. Classify severity: S0 (Critical) | S1 (High) | S2 (Medium) | S3 (Low)
4. Estimate effort: E0 (trivial) | E1 (hours) | E2 (day) | E3 (major)
5. Assign confidence level (see Evidence Requirements below)

Category Token Requirement (MANDATORY):

• In JSONL output, category MUST be one of: Hygiene|Types|Framework|Testing|Security|AICode|Debugging
• Do NOT include spaces, parentheses, or descriptive suffixes (e.g., output AICode, not AICode (AI-Generated Code Failure Modes))

AI-Code Specific Checks:

• Functions with only happy-path logic (no try/catch, no null checks)
• Test files with expect(true).toBe(true) or trivial assertions
• Import statements for packages not in package.json
• Multiple similar code blocks (>10 lines duplicated)
• Functions with >3 levels of nesting

Scope:

• Include: app/, components/, lib/, hooks/, types/
• Exclude: node_modules/, .next/, docs/
• Conditional: tests/ excluded for code hygiene, but included when analyzing Testing Coverage (category 4) and AI-Generated Code (category 6)

Evidence Requirements (MANDATORY)

All findings MUST include:

1. File:Line Reference - Exact location (e.g., lib/utils.ts:45)
2. Code Snippet - The actual problematic code (3-5 lines of context)
3. Verification Method - How you confirmed this is an issue (grep output, lint output)
4. Standard Reference - ESLint rule, TypeScript error, or React best practice citation

Confidence Levels:

• HIGH (90%+): Confirmed by external tool (ESLint, TypeScript, tests), verified file exists, code snippet matches
• MEDIUM (70-89%): Found via pattern search, file verified, but no tool confirmation
• LOW (<70%): Pattern match only, needs manual verification

S0/S1 findings require:

• HIGH or MEDIUM confidence (LOW confidence S0/S1 must be escalated)
• Dual-pass verification (re-read the code after initial finding)
• Cross-reference with ESLint or TypeScript output

Cross-Reference Validation

Before finalizing findings, cross-reference with:

1. ESLint output - Mark findings as "TOOL_VALIDATED" if ESLint flagged same issue
2. TypeScript errors - Mark type findings as "TOOL_VALIDATED" if tsc flagged same issue
3. Test failures - Mark testing findings as "TOOL_VALIDATED" if test suite flagged same area
4. Prior audits - Check docs/audits/single-session/code/ for duplicate findings

Findings without tool validation should note: "cross_ref": "MANUAL_ONLY"

Dual-Pass Verification (S0/S1 Only)

For all S0 (Critical) and S1 (High) findings:

1. First Pass: Identify the issue, note file:line and initial evidence
2. Second Pass: Re-read the actual code in context
   • Verify the issue is real and not a false positive
   • Check for existing handling or intentional patterns
   • Confirm file and line still exist
3. Decision: Mark as CONFIRMED or DOWNGRADE (with reason)

Document dual-pass result in finding: "verified": "DUAL_PASS_CONFIRMED" or "verified": "DOWNGRADED_TO_S2"

Output Requirements

1. Markdown Summary (display to user):

## Code Review Audit - [DATE]

### Baselines

- Tests: X passing, Y failing
- Lint: X errors, Y warnings
- Patterns: X violations

### Findings Summary

| Severity | Count | Top Issues | Confidence  |
| -------- | ----- | ---------- | ----------- |
| S0       | X     | ...        | HIGH/MEDIUM |
| S1       | X     | ...        | HIGH/MEDIUM |
| S2       | X     | ...        | ...         |
| S3       | X     | ...        | ...         |

### Top 5 Issues

1. [file:line] - Description (S1/E1) - DUAL_PASS_CONFIRMED
2. ...

### False Positives Filtered

- X findings excluded (matched FALSE_POSITIVES.jsonl patterns)

### Quick Wins (E0-E1)

- ...

### Recommendations

- ...

2. JSONL Findings (save to file):

Create file: docs/audits/single-session/code/audit-[YYYY-MM-DD].jsonl

Each line (UPDATED SCHEMA with confidence and verification):

{
  "id": "CODE-001",
  "category": "Hygiene|Types|Framework|Testing|Security|AICode|Debugging",
  "severity": "S0|S1|S2|S3",
  "effort": "E0|E1|E2|E3",
  "confidence": "HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW",
  "verified": "DUAL_PASS_CONFIRMED|TOOL_VALIDATED|MANUAL_ONLY",
  "file": "path/to/file.ts",
  "line": 123,
  "title": "Short description",
  "description": "Detailed issue",
  "recommendation": "How to fix",
  "evidence": ["code snippet", "grep output", "lint output"],
  "cross_ref": "eslint|typescript|tests|MANUAL_ONLY"
}

3. Markdown Report (save to file):

Create file: docs/audits/single-session/code/audit-[YYYY-MM-DD].md

Full markdown report with all findings, baselines, and recommendations.

Post-Audit Validation

Before finalizing the audit:

1. Run Validation Script:

   node scripts/validate-audit.js docs/audits/single-session/code/audit-[YYYY-MM-DD].jsonl
   

2. Validation Checks:

   • All findings have required fields
   • No matches in FALSE_POSITIVES.jsonl (or documented override)
   • No duplicate findings
   • All S0/S1 have HIGH or MEDIUM confidence
   • All S0/S1 have DUAL_PASS_CONFIRMED or TOOL_VALIDATED

3. If validation fails:

   • Review flagged findings
   • Fix or document exceptions
   • Re-run validation

Post-Audit

1. Display summary to user
2. Confirm files saved to docs/audits/single-session/code/
3. Run node scripts/validate-audit.js on the JSONL file
4. Validate CANON schema (if audit updates CANON files):

   npm run validate:canon
   

   Ensure all CANON files pass validation before committing.
5. Update AUDIT_TRACKER.md - Add entry to "Code Audits" table:
   • Date: Today's date
   • Session: Current session number from SESSION_CONTEXT.md
   • Commits Covered: Number of commits since last code audit
   • Files Covered: Number of files analyzed
   • Findings: Total count (e.g., "3 S1, 5 S2, 2 S3")
   • Reset Threshold: YES (single-session audits reset that category's threshold)
6. Update Technical Debt Backlog - Re-aggregate all findings:

   npm run aggregate:audit-findings
   

   This updates docs/aggregation/MASTER_ISSUE_LIST.md and the Technical Debt Backlog section in ROADMAP.md. Review the updated counts and ensure new findings are properly categorized.
7. Ask: "Would you like me to fix any of these issues now?"

Threshold System

Category-Specific Thresholds

This audit resets the code category threshold in docs/AUDIT_TRACKER.md (single-session audits reset their own category; multi-AI audits reset all thresholds). Reset means the commit counter for this category starts counting from zero after this audit.

Code audit triggers (check AUDIT_TRACKER.md):

• 25+ commits since last code audit, OR
• 15+ code files modified since last code audit

Multi-AI Escalation

After 3 single-session code audits, a full multi-AI Code Review is recommended. Track this in AUDIT_TRACKER.md "Single audits completed" counter.

Adding New False Positives

If you encounter a pattern that should be excluded from future audits:

node scripts/add-false-positive.js \
  --pattern "regex-pattern" \
  --category "code" \
  --reason "Explanation of why this is not an issue" \
  --source "AI_REVIEW_LEARNINGS_LOG.md#review-XXX"