production-audit

name	production-audit
description	Use when asked whether a change or app is production-ready, what could break in production, or for a ship/block decision before a release — assess readiness from cheap local git, code, CI, and config evidence and return a scored verdict with specific fixes.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"Petr Král (pekral.cz)"}

Production Audit

Constraints

• Read-only skill — never modify code, never run any git write operation (git add, git commit, git push, git reset, git checkout -- …, git stash). Reading the working tree, diff, and log is the entire job; output is the audit report only.
• Local evidence only — work from the local repository, git history, CI config, and committed files. Never upload repo contents, diffs, or secrets to any external service. If a deployed URL is in scope, restrict to your own HTTP/browser checks; do not exfiltrate data.
• Never print secrets. If a secret is found committed, name the file and key, not the value.
• This is a readiness audit, not a vulnerability audit — exploit-level findings belong to @skills/security-review/SKILL.md and @skills/laravel-security/SKILL.md; reference them, do not duplicate them.
• Apply @rules/git/general.mdc when reading the release surface, @rules/code-review/general.mdc for risk judgement, @rules/laravel/laravel.mdc and @rules/laravel/architecture.mdc for Laravel boundaries, @rules/security/backend.md for the auth/data/secret lenses, and @rules/reports/general.mdc for report language.

Use when

• Someone asks "is this production-ready?", "can we ship this?", or "what could break in production?".
• A pre-release / pre-deploy gate is needed for a branch, PR, or the whole app.
• A go/no-go decision is wanted with a concrete list of blockers and fixes, fast, without external tooling.

Defer to security-review/laravel-security for deep vulnerability hunting, to @skills/docker-patterns/SKILL.md for Docker image correctness, and to @skills/code-review/SKILL.md for line-level code quality. This skill consumes their concerns as readiness signals; it does not replace them.

Execution

1. Establish the release surface (git, local)

• git status — uncommitted or untracked work that would not ship, or worse, would.
• git log --oneline origin/master..HEAD (or the project default branch) — what this release actually contains.
• git diff origin/master...HEAD --stat then targeted git diff on the riskiest files — the concrete change set to judge.
• Scope the audit to this surface. A whole-app audit only when no branch/PR is named.

2. Review boundaries through risk lenses

Walk the change set and the boundaries it touches. For each lens, gather local evidence and record a finding only when something is missing, unsafe, or unverified.

• Runtime & Auth — public vs admin/authenticated routes are clearly separated (routes/web.php, routes/api.php); every protected route carries the right middleware and auth guard; authorization is enforced server-side (Policies / Gates / authorize() / FormRequest), not only in the UI; rate limiting (throttle) on auth and abuse-prone endpoints; no secrets hardcoded in source.
• Data integrity — every new migration is reversible (down() present and correct, or an explicit irreversible note); destructive changes (drop column, type narrowing, non-null without default on a populated table) have a rollout/backfill plan; Eloquent writes that can race are wrapped in transactions or use upserts; tenant/ownership scoping on multi-tenant data.
• Payments & webhooks — inbound webhooks verify signatures; handlers are idempotent against retries and duplicate deliveries (dedup key / firstOrCreate); test vs live credentials are separated and driven by config, never hardcoded.
• Jobs & scheduling — queued jobs are idempotent and safe to retry (tries, backoff, unique-job where needed); the scheduler (schedule:run / schedule:work) and at least one queue worker are actually wired in deployment; failed-job handling exists.
• Config & secrets — required env keys are documented in .env.example; no real secrets committed (.env, keys, tokens); production config is cached-safe (no closures in config), APP_DEBUG=false and APP_ENV=production for prod, config:cache compatible.
• Observability — errors and failed jobs surface somewhere (logging channel, Sentry/Bugsnag, Telescope/Horizon in non-prod or gated in prod); Horizon is configured if Redis queues are used; health/readiness endpoint exists for the deploy target.
• Deployment & rollback — Docker/deploy config is coherent (see @skills/docker-patterns/SKILL.md); php artisan migrate --force runs on deploy and migrations are reversible enough to roll back; a documented rollback path (previous image/tag + migrate:rollback or forward-fix) exists.

3. Check the release machinery

• CI — a workflow runs tests, static analysis, and the build on this branch; it is green for the head commit. A red or absent CI on critical paths is a hard signal.
• Migrations — they apply cleanly from a fresh DB and roll back; no migration depends on data only present in one environment.
• Env docs — .env.example matches the keys the code reads; new config has documented defaults.
• Tests — critical paths added/changed by this release have at least one feature/HTTP test exercising them.

4. Score and decide

Assign a 0–100 readiness score from the lenses and machinery, then apply hard caps.

Output

Report in the language required by @rules/reports/general.mdc (canonical English when folded into a GitHub PR comment by a CR wrapper). Lead with the verdict, then the evidence. Keep it tight and actionable.

1. Verdict (one line)

SHIP / SHIP WITH CAVEATS / RISKY / BLOCKED — score NN/100 — one-sentence reason.

Score bands

• 0–49 — Blocked. Do not ship. At least one critical readiness gap.
• 50–69 — Risky. Beta / small rollout only, with named risks accepted by an owner.
• 70–84 — Launchable with caveats. Ship with the listed caveats explicitly accepted.
• 85–100 — Strong. No obvious blockers.

Hard caps (override the raw score)

• Cap at 69 when any of: a protected surface has no server-side authorization; a webhook/payment handler is not idempotent or skips signature verification; a migration is destructive without a rollback/backfill plan; a real secret is committed.
• Cap at 84 when CI is red or absent on critical paths, or a critical path changed by this release has no end-to-end/feature test.

2. Blockers

Each: lens, location (file + line / route / migration), what is missing or unsafe, and the concrete fix (specific code/config change, not "add validation"). These drive the score below 70 or the relevant cap.

3. High-value improvements

Non-blocking gaps that materially reduce risk, each with a concrete fix.

4. Evidence checklist

Mark each as pass / gap / not-checked with the local source inspected:

• Release surface (git status / log / diff)
• Runtime & auth boundaries
• Data integrity & migration reversibility
• Payments & webhook idempotency (or n/a)
• Jobs & scheduler wiring (or n/a)
• Config & secrets / .env.example
• Observability & health endpoint
• Deployment & rollback path
• CI status on head commit
• Tests on critical paths

5. Next step

One concrete action that most raises readiness.

Done when

• The verdict, score, and band are stated, with hard caps applied where a critical gap exists.
• Every blocker names a location and a concrete fix; the evidence checklist marks each item pass/gap/not-checked with its local source.
• No code was modified, no git write ran, and no repo data or secret left the machine.

Output Humanization

• Use blader/humanizer for all skill outputs to keep the text natural and human-friendly.