Skip to main content
ClaudeWave
ES, Spanish
Instalar en Claude Code
Copiar
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace /tmp/audit && cp -r /tmp/audit/plugins/ai-agency/hyperflow/skills/audit ~/.claude/skills/audit
Después abre una sesión nueva de Claude Code; el skill carga automáticamente.

SKILL.md

# Audit

Multi-level code review. All agents inherit the session model. Reviewers bold-labeled; Workers plain.

This skill exercises **Layer 3 (Orchestrator)** and **Layer 9 (Security)**. After the review prints, a **fix gate** asks the user whether to apply the findings — on `Yes`, audit auto-invokes `/hyperflow:plan` with the findings as the spec, which then chains to `/hyperflow:dispatch`.

## Iron Rules

**Failure recovery (DOCTRINE rule 14).** Worker errors, malformed output, NEEDS_REVISION verdicts, and gate failures in every Step follow the canonical policy in [`skills/hyperflow/failure-recovery.md`](../hyperflow/failure-recovery.md). Audit-specific exception: a failed Reviewer at L1/L2 escalates to an L3+ Reviewer at the same severity level rather than aborting — audit exists to catch issues, so a Reviewer failure is best resolved by a more thorough Reviewer, not by stopping the chain.

## Per-Step Agent Map (DOCTRINE rule 12)

| Step | Sub-phase | Workers | Reviewers | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 — Resolve scope | — | — | — | Mechanical decision (exempt) |
| 2 — Gather context | 2a — Surface mapping | Searcher × 2 (glob + import-graph) | Reviewer | Parallel |
| 2 — Gather context | 2b — Semantic indexing | Searcher × 2 (type-system + symbol-graph) | Reviewer | Parallel |
| 2 — Gather context | 2c — Convention scan | Searcher × 1 (test patterns + lint config) | Reviewer | Justified single-angle |
| 2 — Gather context | 2d — Aggregate coverage gate | — | **Reviewer** verifies aggregate coverage | Standalone coverage gate |
| 3 — Review | 3a — L1+L2 (syntax/format/naming) | — | **Domain specialist Reviewer** × 2 (file groups, surface-matched) + Reviewer aggregates | Parallel pair dispatched as the matching domain specialists |
| 3 — Review | 3b — L3 (integration/security) | — | **Reviewer** × 2 — backend-reviewer + security-reviewer/vulnerability-reviewer + Reviewer aggregates | Parallel pair; security specialists web-research-first |
| 3 — Review | 3c — L4+L5 (perf/scale/a11y/UX) | — | **Reviewer** × 2 — performance-reviewer + accessibility-reviewer + Reviewer aggregates | Parallel pair dispatched as the matching specialists |
| 4 — Findings synthesis | 4a — Critical findings | Writer × 2 (evidence probe + impact analysis) | Reviewer | Parallel |
| 4 — Findings synthesis | 4b — Important findings | Writer × 2 (root-cause probe + fix-path analysis) | Reviewer | Parallel |
| 4 — Findings synthesis | 4c — Suggestions + observations | Writer × 2 (pattern analysis + praise identification) | Reviewer | Parallel |
| 4 — Findings synthesis | 4d — Memory feedback | Writer × 1 (anti-pattern curation) | Reviewer (dedup + compaction validation) | Atomic Worker→Reviewer; runs after 4a/4b/4c complete; with compaction pass when triggered |
| 5 — Severity reconciliation | — | — | Reviewer reconciles severity labels from Step 3 sub-phases | Atomic-exempt per DOCTRINE 12.2.8 — reads existing Step 3 labels; no Workers needed |
| 6 — Fix gate | — | — | — | `AskUserQuestion` only (exempt — structural gate) |

## Approval Gates

| Gate | When | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Fix gate | Step 6, after NEEDS_FIX or PASS-with-suggestions | `AskUserQuestion` — fix all / criticals only / no |
| Hard halt | Any `SECURITY_VIOLATION` from the reviewer | Stop, surface the finding; no fix gate |

## Inputs

- **Target** — file path, line range, commit SHA, branch, or PR number provided by the user
- **Default (no target)** — `git diff HEAD` + `git diff --staged`
- **Level flag** — `--level 1` through `--level 5` (default — L2)

## Review Levels

Adapted from [review-levels.md](references/review-levels.md):

| L | Name | Checks |
|---|------|--------|
| 1 | Quick | Syntax, obvious bugs, formatting |
| 2 | Standard | L1 + spec compliance, naming, edge cases |
| 3 | Thorough | L2 + cross-file consistency, integration risks, security |
| 4 | Deep | L3 + architecture, scalability, accessibility |
| 5 | Exhaustive | L4 + adversarial probing, perf profiling, alternatives |

Security scan (hardcoded secrets, injection, path traversal, XSS, missing validation) is mandatory at L3+. See [security.md](references/security.md).

## Flow

### Step 1 — Resolve scope

Use the provided target or run `git diff HEAD` + `git diff --staged`. No agent dispatched (read-only git).

**Targets accepted:** a path/glob, an explicit file list, or a **git range `<base>..<head>`**. The range form is how a two-session **handoff review** runs — `/hyperflow:handoff review <slug>` reads the build's `COMPLETION.md` diff range and invokes audit as `Skill audit "<base>..<head> level=<n>"`, so the review covers exactly the second session's commits (`git diff <base>..<head>`). See [`../hyperflow/session-handoff.md`](../hyperflow/session-handoff.md).

### Step 2 — Gather context

Sub-phases 2a, 2b, 2c run in parallel (P1). Step 2 output is the union of their worker outputs plus three sub-phase Reviewer verdicts, handed to a standalone aggregate coverage gate. The Searchers also record **which surfaces the diff touches** (frontend / api / db / devops / mobile / data-ml / security) — this drives the domain-specialist selection in Step 3 ([`../../agents/README.md`](../../agents/README.md)).

#### Step 2a — Surface mapping

Dispatch two Searcher agents in parallel:
- Searcher — glob discovery (file extensions, directory tree, entry points)
- Searcher — import-graph traversal (follow `import`/`require`/`use` chains from touched files)

Then dispatch `**Reviewer** — 2a surface mapping coverage check`. Verdict ∈ {`PASS`, `NEEDS_REVISION`, `ESCALATE`}. On `NEEDS_REVISION`, re-dispatch only 2a.

#### Step 2b — Semantic indexing

Dispatch two Searcher agents in parallel:
- Searcher — type-system probe (interface/schema definitions relevant to changed symbols)
- Searcher — symbol-graph probe (callsites, usages, exported references of changed symbols)

Then dispatch `**Reviewer** — 2b semantic indexing coverage check`. Verdict as above.

#### Step 2c — Convention s