Seam Audit

Seam Audit

Diagnostic pass over a codebase's boundaries — not the code inside modules, but the places where modules meet. The output is a map and a flagged list, never a change to the code.

Vocabulary

The skill leans on three definitions. Use them explicitly when reporting:

• Module — a section of code with an interface and an implementation. Granularity is project-dependent: a file with exports, a folder of cohesive files, a published package, or a subsystem. Pick a granularity at the start of the run and hold it constant for the whole audit — mid-run re-classification breaks the diagram.
• Seam — an import edge between modules. A has an outgoing seam to B iff A imports B. B's incoming seam from A is the same edge viewed from the other side. Static import / require / use is the default surface; tricky cases (dynamic imports, DI, framework routing) are covered in references/import-graph-traps.md.
• Hub — a module with many seams. Being a hub is not inherently bad: foundational types and orchestrators are hubs by design. The diagnostic question is whether each hub is intentional.

Scope

• Default: entire repo. Step 1 below decides the module granularity; the user is asked only when the default rules are ambiguous.
• Narrowed: if the user names a specific subtree (e.g. "audit the auth subsystem"), enumerate modules within that subtree. Modules outside the subtree are external — count seams to/from them but don't classify them.
• Monorepos and large repos (>~50 modules at the chosen granularity): ask the user to scope to one package, service, or subsystem before running. A repo-wide topology at file-level granularity is rarely informative.
• Excluded by default: vendored code, generated code, build output, third-party packages, test files (the unit-of-audit is the production module; tests don't count toward incoming seams).
• Too-small input: if there are fewer than ~5 modules at any granularity, this skill is the wrong tool. Suggest a regular code review instead.

The skill emits no file changes. If the audit's findings should be acted on, hand off to a refactor skill (e.g. improve-code-structure).

Procedure

Four steps. Each produces an artifact the next consumes. Total length: typically 10-50 modules' worth of analysis, deliverable in one response.

The agent running the skill MAY parallelize step 2 if its platform supports concurrent file reads or grep. The procedure does not depend on parallelism — sequential execution is equivalent in correctness, only slower.

Step 1 — Define the unit of analysis

Decide what counts as a module for this run. In priority order:

1. If the user specified one (e.g. "treat each file as a module"), use that.
2. If the repo has obvious subsystem boundaries (a src/ divided by purpose: src/auth/, src/payments/, etc.), default to those subsystems.
3. Otherwise, default to each leaf file with public exports — the most fine-grained interpretation.

If the chosen granularity produces more than ~50 modules, pause and ask the user to scope down (per the monorepo rule above).

Whatever you pick, state it explicitly in the first sentence of the report: "For this audit, a module is N."

Step 2 — Enumerate modules + their seams

For each module in scope:

1. Identify the interface. What does this module export? Public symbols, files, package entry points — depending on the granularity from step 1. Language-dependent: TypeScript export, Python __all__ / underscore convention, Go capitalized names, Rust pub, Java public classes, etc.
2. Identify outgoing seams. What does this module import from outside its boundary? Count distinct importees, not distinct symbols (import { a, b } from "x" = one seam to x, not two). Each external package counts as one outgoing seam (so import a from "react" + import b from "lodash" = two outgoing seams, displayed in the diagram and table collapsed under external:*).
3. Identify incoming seams. What in-scope modules import this module's interface? Same counting rule. Test files do not count.

How to gather this:

• For source languages with explicit import / require / use syntax: grep across the scope.
• For languages with implicit dependencies or any of the trap patterns in references/import-graph-traps.md (dynamic imports, DI, framework routing, barrel re-exports, plugin systems, string-based resolvers): apply the rubric in that file. If the traces aren't determinable, flag the affected modules with uncertain-import-graph and add a Limitations line to the report.
• External dependencies don't enter the classification table — only in-scope modules are classified — but their counts still contribute to the module's outgoing seam total.

Record per module: { name, role, outgoing-seams[list-of-names], incoming-seams[list-of-names], out-count, in-count, notes }.

Step 3 — Diagram the topology

Produce a layered ASCII diagram following one explicit arrow convention:

A → B means A imports B. Place callers / entry surfaces at the top. Place foundations / dependencies at the bottom. Most arrows point downward.

Layer rule (plain language):

Dependencies should point downward toward more foundational modules. An import that points upward (a foundational module importing an application module) is a layer-violation flag.

Cycles:

Draw small cycles (≤4 modules) inline: A → B → C → A. Collapse larger cycles as a labeled node (cycle group: A/B/C/D) and list the full path in the flagged-list entry.

Cross-cuts (modules consumed across many layers — types, design system, foundational helpers):

Draw as a separate band at the bottom or as labeled side-gutter arrows. Don't thread them through the main vertical flow.

The diagram is the most useful artifact this skill produces — invest in making it readable. If it doesn't fit on a single screen, either summarize (collapse layers into groups) or pause and ask the user to narrow scope. Do not silently narrow scope mid-run.

Full diagram conventions + a sample skeleton: references/output-format.md.

Step 4 — Classify and flag

Each module gets one classification + zero or more flags. These are two independent axes — a module can be hub-by-design AND in a cycle.

Classifications (pick exactly one):

• narrow — 0-2 seams in each direction. Leaf utility, pure data, single-consumer adapter.
• hub-by-design — high seam count, but the role explains it: foundational types (consumed everywhere), composition roots (compose everything), orchestrators (drive many consumers), public-API barrel files. State the role explicitly in the table.
• accidental hub — high seam count that the role does not obviously explain. This is the finding the skill exists to produce.

Flags (zero or more, additive):

• cycle — module is part of an import cycle.
• layer-violation — module imports upward.
• external-heavy — most outgoing seams target external packages, not in-scope modules.
• uncertain-import-graph — static analysis is incomplete for this module (see references/import-graph-traps.md). The classification is best-effort.

Thresholds depend on granularity and project idioms. Pick a cutoff for the run and state it in the report:

• File-level: typically outgoing >5 or incoming >10 is a candidate for the hub bucket.
• Subsystem-level: typically outgoing >3 or incoming >6.

Adjust to outliers for this codebase. The skill's job is the flagging; the fix lives in a refactor skill.

Output

Single report with the sections specified in references/output-format.md § Required sections, in order:

1. Module-definition line
2. Threshold-disclosure line
3. Limitations line (only if applicable)
4. The diagram
5. The classification table (exact column schema in references/output-format.md)
6. Flagged for review — modules with accidental hub classification OR any flag besides external-heavy. Each entry: 1-2 sentences explaining why it's flagged + a direction for follow-up (not an implementation plan).
7. Not actioned (bounded) — modules considered borderline but not flagged. Keep to ~5 entries.

If there's nothing flagged: "The boundaries are intentional — nothing flagged." That's the most useful possible outcome.

Follow-up direction examples:

• ✅ "Investigate splitting time helpers from string helpers — they share nothing semantically."
• ❌ "Move dateAdd and dateSubtract into a new file time-helpers.ts, update imports in foo.ts and bar.ts, …" — that's a refactor plan; hand off to improve-code-structure instead.

Anti-patterns to avoid

• Don't over-decompose. A module with one outgoing + one incoming seam isn't a virtue if the surrounding code is contorted to route through it. Flag genuine boundary issues, not architectural purity.
• Don't moralize about hubs. Foundational types are hubs because they should be foundational. The interesting finding is "this hub is accidental," not "this module has high fan-in."
• Don't propose fixes inside this skill. Direction-level suggestions only. Detailed refactor plans belong in a downstream skill.
• Don't silently narrow scope. If the diagram won't fit, summarize OR ask the user — don't drop modules to make it pretty.
• Don't audit beyond the scope. External dependencies are one seam each per importer. Per-method or per-symbol coupling is out of scope unless explicitly requested.
• Don't run on a codebase with no clear module concept. A single-file script or a flat directory of unrelated scripts doesn't need a seam audit.
• Don't mistake static imports for the whole picture. Read references/import-graph-traps.md before reporting — DI / dynamic imports / framework routing can hide significant seams.

When to invoke this skill

• After a structural refactor — verify boundaries actually improved.
• Before scaling a subsystem — see where the seams cluster.
• When a new contributor needs an architectural map.
• When code review keeps surfacing "this change touched too many files" — usually a hub-by-accident.
• When import-direction cycles are suspected.

When not to invoke this skill

• Bug investigation — wrong tool; use a debugger or a competing-hypotheses pass.
• Single-file improvements — wrong granularity; use a code review skill.
• "Make this faster" — wrong question; use a profiler.
• Active refactoring — this is diagnostic only. Pair it with improve-code-structure if changes are desired.