Go Live Audit

1. You are authoring a fresh, project-tailored workflow from the bundled template — never run one fixed script blindly. Fill every FILL: marker before running.
2. The workflow architecture is load-bearing. Leave the schemas and the entire control-flow section of the template unchanged: Gates → Find → Dedup → Verify → Critic → report. The one exception is MAX_PARALLEL (the concurrency cap) — you may tune its value, but never remove the gate or the gAgent wrapper that enforces it.
3. Keep meta a pure literal (no variables, no interpolation) or the Workflow tool rejects it.
4. Finders and verifiers are read-only. They must never modify, create, or delete files, and never run builds or installs. Only gate agents execute commands (build may write dist/).
5. Never quote secret values in findings or evidence — report type and location only, redact the value with <REDACTED>.
6. Confirm scope and warn the user about the agent count (typically 40–80) before running.
7. These instructions authorize calling the Workflow tool — no separate opt-in is needed, but the scope confirmation and scale warning above are mandatory first.

Go-Live Audit

Inputs

• $request: Optional repo path, launch context, or focus guidance such as audit ~/work/myapp before public beta or light pass, security only

Goal

Produce a credible launch-readiness verdict by generating and running a project-tailored pre-launch audit workflow:

• Gates — typecheck / test / lint / build, run in parallel
• Find — one read-only finder agent per applicable audit dimension
• Dedup — an agent merges findings that share a root cause
• Verify — adversarial agents try to refute every finding; blockers and highs get a code lens plus a spec lens
• Critic — names uncovered areas, spawns follow-up finders, verifies them
• A structured GO / NO-GO / GO-WITH-FIXES report

All phases fan out through a global concurrency gate (MAX_PARALLEL, default 6) so a wide sweep never puts more than that many agents in flight at once — the total agent count is unchanged, but they run in bounded waves so Claude's API rate limits are not tripped.

Step 0: Confirm scope

Establish, asking the user only if unclear:

• Which repo (absolute path). Default to the current working directory.
• Launch context — what "go live" means here: public release, first paying customers, internal GA. This shapes what counts as a blocker.

Do not ask more than necessary; infer from the repo when you can.

Success criteria: The target repo and launch context are explicit.

Step 1: Discover the project

Read the repo enough to fill the template accurately. Gather:

• Build/test commands — inspect package.json scripts (and whether it is a pnpm/npm/yarn/bun workspace, turbo, etc.), or Cargo.toml, go.mod, Makefile, pyproject.toml. Determine the exact typecheck / test / lint / build command run from the repo root (references/workflow-template.js lists common commands per stack).
• Layout — apps/packages or src tree; the modules that exist.
• Authority docs — a spec/PRD, root CLAUDE.md, README, docs/. Note the order of authority (e.g. "spec > CLAUDE.md > code").
• Product purpose — one paragraph: what it is, who uses it.
• Hard invariants — rules the project must never violate (from the spec/CLAUDE.md): privacy guarantees, security/tenancy rules, "soft-fail everywhere", schema conventions, anti-features. If none are documented, derive sensible universal ones (data integrity, authz on sensitive reads, no committed secrets, green build/test/lint, no TODO/placeholder in shipping code).

Use Explore/Glob/Grep/Read freely here; this step determines audit quality.

Success criteria: Stack commands, layout, authority docs, product purpose, and hard rules are all known well enough to fill the template without guessing.

Step 2: Choose the finder dimensions

From references/dimensions.md, pick the 8–16 dimensions that actually apply to this repo — a CLI does not need multi-tenancy; a static site does not need money-math. Add any project-specific dimensions the catalog misses.

Each finder must name concrete files/dirs to read and specific, verifiable checks — not "review X for quality". Tie the worst checks to the project's hard rules.

Success criteria: Every chosen dimension has a real surface in this repo, and every finder prompt is self-contained with concrete targets and checks.

Step 3: Fill the template

Copy references/workflow-template.js and fill every FILL: marker:

• ROOT — absolute repo path.
• meta — keep it a pure literal (no variables/interpolation) or the Workflow tool rejects it. Update description to the project; keep the phase titles.
• PRODUCT_CONTEXT, HARD_RULES — from Step 1.
• SEVERITY_DEFS — replace the blocker examples with this product's launch-stoppers.
• FINDERS — the dimensions from Step 2.
• STACK — the detected commands; set any gate to null to skip it.

Leave the schemas and the entire control-flow section unchanged — they are generic. The only value you may adjust there is MAX_PARALLEL (default 6): the cap on how many agents run at once. Lower it (e.g. 4) if the account hits rate limits; raise it (e.g. 8–10) on a high-limit account for more throughput. Do not set it to 1–2 (that serializes the audit) and never delete the gate itself.

Success criteria: No FILL: marker remains, meta is a pure literal, and the control-flow section is byte-identical to the template.

Step 4: Warn about scale, then run

Tell the user roughly how many agents this will spawn (finders + ~1–2 verifiers each + gates + critic round — typically 40–80 agents total, but at most MAX_PARALLEL (default 6) run at once, so the audit proceeds in bounded waves rather than hammering the API) so the cost and pacing are expected. Then call the Workflow tool with script set to the filled-in template. Watch progress via /workflows.

To iterate on the script, edit the saved scriptPath the tool returns and re-invoke Workflow with {scriptPath} rather than resending the whole script.

Success criteria: The user knows the expected scale before the workflow starts, and the workflow runs to completion.

Step 5: Report

The workflow returns { gates, findings, finderNotes, stats }. Render a launch readiness report:

• Verdict — GO / NO-GO / GO-WITH-FIXES, driven by gate failures and confirmed blockers.
• Gates — pass/fail per gate with failure excerpts.
• Findings grouped by status then severity. Lead with confirmed blockers and highs. Show uncertain separately (verifiers split). Omit or collapse rejected (verifiers refuted them) — mention the count, not the detail.
• For each surviving finding: severity, file:line, the issue, and the verifier reasoning. Note alsoReportedBy when multiple finders flagged it.
• Coverage — stats (raw vs deduped counts, finders reported, critic gap areas) and anything the critic flagged as uncovered.

Success criteria: The user can decide go/no-go from the report without re-deriving any finding from scratch.

Guardrails

• This skill audits and reports; it never fixes. Do not edit application code as part of this skill — hand confirmed findings to bugfix or the user.
• Keep finders and verifiers read-only; keep that discipline when editing prompts.
• Scale to the ask: fewer finders + code-only verification for a light pass; the full 16 + dual-lens verification + critic round for "audit everything".
• Severity is go-live-framed, not abstract — a blocker is something that must be fixed before this launch, judged against the project's hard rules.
• Never include secret values in findings, evidence, or the report — location and type only.
• Do not modify settings files or install anything on the user's behalf.

When To Load References

• references/workflow-template.js The parameterized workflow. Read it before generating; copy it, fill every FILL: marker, run it.
• references/dimensions.md Catalog of audit dimensions to choose finders from, plus the finder-prompt style guide.

Output Contract

Report:

1. verdict — GO / NO-GO / GO-WITH-FIXES with one-line justification
2. gate results with failure excerpts
3. confirmed blockers and highs with file:line, evidence, and verifier reasoning
4. uncertain findings (verifiers split) listed separately
5. rejected-findings count (not detail)
6. coverage stats and critic-identified gaps