Auditing Typescript

Adversarial code review through comprehension. Find design flaws that automated tools cannot catch. Produce a structured verdict -- not code changes.

This skill is read-only. It produces verdicts, not commits or fixes.

Test evidence quality is audited by /auditing-typescript-tests. This skill audits implementation code, not test code. If test files are in scope, delegate to /auditing-typescript-tests.

1. Read /testing for methodology + /testing-typescript for TypeScript patterns
2. Load project config: CLAUDE.md, tsconfig.json, package.json (Phase 0)
3. Run automated gates -- project validation command (Phase 1, blocking)
4. Run tests -- verify all pass (Phase 2, blocking)
5. Comprehend every function -- predict, verify, investigate (Phase 3)
6. Check ADR/PDR compliance (Phase 4)
7. Produce structured verdict: APPROVED or REJECTED

Trust automated gates, then comprehend.

Phases 1-2 are mechanical prerequisites. If they fail, stop -- REJECTED. If they pass, do NOT re-check what linters and tests already verified. Your time is for Phase 3.

Comprehension is the core value.

Automated tools catch syntax errors, type mismatches, and lint violations. You catch: functions that do more than their name says, dead parameters required by no interface, IO tangled with logic, and designs that will break under change. The predict/verify protocol (Phase 3) is how you find these.

Test evidence is not your concern.

/auditing-typescript-tests evaluates whether tests provide genuine evidence using the 4-property model (coupling, falsifiability, alignment, coverage). This skill verifies tests PASS, not whether they have evidentiary value. Do not duplicate that work.

Binary verdict, no caveats.

APPROVED means every concern passes. REJECTED means at least one fails. APPROVED output contains no notes, warnings, or suggestions sections.

Execute phases IN ORDER. Do not skip.

Phase 0: Scope and Project Config

1. Determine target files/directories
2. Read CLAUDE.md/README.md for validation commands and test runners
3. Check tsconfig.json, package.json for tool configurations

Phase 1: Automated Gates (blocking)

Run the project's validation command. Catches everything linters handle: type safety, naming, magic numbers, unused imports, security rules.

If the project lacks its own linter configs, use the reference configs in ${SKILL_DIR}/rules/:

Non-zero exit = REJECTED. Do not proceed.

Do NOT manually re-check what linters catch. If the project's linters are properly configured per /standardizing-typescript, they handle type annotations, naming, unused imports, commented-out code, and security rules.

Note: Some rules require manual verification during Phase 3 -- deep relative imports, unqualified any, @ts-ignore without justification.

Phase 2: Test Execution (blocking)

Run the full test suite. Use the project's test runner from CLAUDE.md.

If tests require infrastructure (databases, Docker), attempt to provision it. Do not skip tests because infrastructure "isn't running" -- try to start it first.

ANY test failure = REJECTED. Do not proceed.

Phase 3: Code Comprehension

Read every file. Understand it. Question it. Do NOT skim, sample, or check boxes.

3.1 Per-Function Protocol

For each function/method:

1. Read name and signature only -- name, parameters, return type
2. Predict what it does in one sentence
3. Read the body -- validate your prediction
4. Investigate surprises:

Prediction matched? Move on. Surprise? Document it with file:line.

3.2 Design Evaluation

For the codebase as a whole:

• IO vs logic separation -- Can core logic be tested without IO? Tangled computation and side effects need factoring.
• Dependency injection -- External dependencies injected via parameters, or imported as globals?
• Single responsibility -- Each module/class does one thing? Each function does one thing?
• Error quality -- Errors include what failed and with what input?
• Domain exceptions -- Custom exceptions for domain errors, or everything generic Error?

3.3 Import Evaluation

Evaluate import structure using the same vocabulary as /auditing-typescript-tests:

Import depth rules:

For stable locations (lib/, tests/helpers/, shared/), path aliases are mandatory regardless of depth.

See ${SKILL_DIR}/references/false-positive-handling.md for application context when evaluating security and linter suppression comments.

Phase 4: ADR/PDR Compliance

Find applicable ADRs/PDRs in the spec hierarchy (*.adr.md, *.pdr.md). Verify each constraint is followed. Undocumented deviations = REJECTED. If the project has no spec hierarchy, this concern is N/A.

These are real failures from past audits. Study them to avoid repeating them.

Approved code that passed linters but had a design flaw. The auditor trusted Phase 1 output and skimmed Phase 3. The code had a function named validateConfig that also wrote the config file -- SRP violation hidden behind a reasonable name. The predict/verify protocol would have caught it: "Given the name, I predict this validates. But the body also calls writeFileSync. Surprise."

Rejected code for a false positive. The auditor flagged a parameter as "dead code" because it wasn't used in the function body. The parameter was required by a CommandHandler interface contract -- other implementations used it. Before flagging dead parameters, check if the function implements an interface or Protocol.

Tried to evaluate test evidence instead of delegating. The auditor found vi.fn() in tests and spent time analyzing whether it broke coupling. That's /auditing-typescript-tests' job. This auditor should have verified tests PASS (Phase 2) and moved on to comprehending the implementation code.

Distracted by style while missing a logic bug. The auditor spent review time on naming conventions, import ordering, and JSDoc completeness. Meanwhile, a branch condition was inverted -- if (isValid) should have been if (!isValid). Comprehension (understanding what the code does) must come before style. Style is the linter's job.

Accepted code with tangled IO. A processOrders function both computed order totals AND sent confirmation emails. Tests passed and types were correct. But the function was untestable without an email server -- IO and logic were tangled. The design evaluation (3.2) would have caught it: "Can core logic be tested without IO? No."

# CODE REVIEW

**Decision:** [APPROVED | REJECTED]

## Verdict

| # | Concern                | Status            | Detail            |
| - | ---------------------- | ----------------- | ----------------- |
| 1 | Automated gates        | {PASS/REJECT}     | {one-line detail} |
| 2 | Test execution         | {PASS/REJECT}     | {one-line detail} |
| 3 | Function comprehension | {PASS/REJECT}     | {one-line detail} |
| 4 | Design coherence       | {PASS/REJECT}     | {one-line detail} |
| 5 | Import structure       | {PASS/REJECT/N/A} | {one-line detail} |
| 6 | ADR/PDR compliance     | {PASS/REJECT/N/A} | {one-line detail} |

---

## Findings (REJECTED only)

### {Finding name}

**Where:** {file:line or section}
**Concern:** {which concern from verdict table}
**Why this fails:** {direct explanation}

**Correct approach:**

```typescript
{What the code should look like}
```

---

{Repeat for each finding}

---

## Required Changes (REJECTED only)

{Concise list of what must change}

---

{If REJECTED: "Fix issues and resubmit for review."}
{If APPROVED: "Code meets standards."}

• Do NOT re-check linter concerns (Phase 1 handles those)
• Do NOT evaluate test evidence quality (delegate to /auditing-typescript-tests)
• Do NOT commit or modify code (this skill is read-only)
• Do NOT approve with caveats (binary verdict only)
• Do NOT reject for code style when comprehension found no design flaws

Review is complete when:

• Project validation command run (Phase 1)
• Test suite run (Phase 2)
• Every function comprehended via predict/verify protocol (Phase 3)
• Design evaluated: IO/logic, DI, SRP, error quality (Phase 3)
• Import structure checked (Phase 3)
• ADR/PDR compliance verified (Phase 4)
• Structured verdict table with per-concern status
• For REJECT: findings with concern, explanation, and correct approach
• Decision clearly stated (APPROVED/REJECTED)