auditing-agents

name	auditing-agents
description	This skill MUST be invoked when the user says "audit agent", "review agent", "check agent compliance", or "agent audit checklist". SHOULD also invoke when user mentions "AGENT-GUIDELINES compliance", "agent review", or "coupling detection". Provides the procedural framework for auditing agents against AGENT-GUIDELINES.md.

Auditing Agents

Overview

Evaluate agents against AGENT-GUIDELINES.md using a structured six-phase audit that checks structure, persona quality, coupling, skill delegation, and type-specific requirements. Produce actionable audit reports with severity classification and clear verdicts.

When to Use

• Auditing an agent before shipping
• Reviewing an existing agent for AGENT-GUIDELINES.md compliance
• Checking for coupling leaks after refactoring an agent
• Validating that an agent delegates to skills instead of embedding process
• Performing a quality gate check on a reviewer or executor agent

When NOT to Use

• Auditing skills -- Use SKILL-GUIDELINES.md validation instead
• Creating new agents -- Use AGENT-GUIDELINES.md directly as the authoring reference
• Reviewing workflow supervisors -- Supervisors have different compliance standards
• Code review -- Different domain entirely

Agent Classification

Before auditing, classify the agent by type. Classification determines which type-specific checks apply.

Type	Detection Criteria	Special Requirements
Persona	Rich identity, deep domain expertise, skill-augmented	Standard audit only
Reviewer	Adversarial stance, evaluates artifacts produced by others	Adversarial calibration, "What You Hunt For", severity classification
Executor	Runs tasks, captures evidence, follows instructions	Evidence capture rules, escalation rules, model choice justified if not opus

Core Process: Six-Phase Audit

Phase 1: Intake

1. Read the agent .md file -- frontmatter and body
2. Classify agent type (persona, reviewer, executor)
3. Count words in body (excluding frontmatter YAML)
4. List all referenced skills from the skills field

Phase 2: Structure Audit

Check against AGENT-GUIDELINES.md Section 3 and 7.1:

Check	Severity
YAML frontmatter exists	Critical
name field present, lowercase/hyphens, 3-50 chars	Critical
description includes 2-4 <example> blocks	Critical
description has no workflow summary (Anti-Leak)	Critical
description leads with role, not process	Critical
model set appropriately for agent type	Critical
color present	Critical
skills lists only needed skills	Minor
Body word count: SHOULD 500-1,500, MUST <2,000	Minor or Critical

Phase 3: Persona Quality Audit

Check against AGENT-GUIDELINES.md Sections 3.2 and 4:

Check	Severity
Uses second person ("You are...")	Critical
Opening Identity present in 1-2 sentences	Critical
Core Identity uses "You think like a [role] who has:" pattern	Critical
Each experience connects to a judgment	Important
"What You Reject" section present	Critical
"What You Embrace" section present	Critical
Quality standards framed as character traits, not procedural rules	Important
No generic/decorative flavor text	Important

Character Trait vs. Procedural Rule Test:

• "What to do step-by-step" belongs in a skill
• "What this persona cares about" belongs in the agent

Phase 4: Coupling Detection Audit

Check against AGENT-GUIDELINES.md Sections 5 and 7.3. Five prohibited patterns:

Leak	What to Find	Severity
Phase branching	"Phase:", "phase ==", "if phase", section headers named after phases	Critical
Artifact path assumptions	.workflow/, spec.md, "Write to [specific path]"	Critical
Sibling agent awareness	Names other agents, "Ready for [agent-name] review"	Critical
Workflow file schema	"phase:", "supervisor_instructions:", context field definitions	Critical
Sequencing knowledge	"After [phase/step]", "Previous artifacts", "from phase 1"	Critical

After checking all five patterns, apply the reusability test:

Could this agent be dropped into a completely different workflow -- with different phases, different file paths, different sibling agents -- and still function correctly based solely on its persona and skills?

If no, the agent has coupling leaks. See references/anti-leak-detection.md for detailed detection patterns, keywords, and compliant alternatives for each leak type.

Phase 5: Skill Delegation Audit

Check against AGENT-GUIDELINES.md Sections 3.2.5 and 7.4:

Check	Severity
"Skills Available" section present	Important
"Use the Skill tool to invoke these" instruction present	Important
No process steps duplicated from skills	Critical
No procedural logic that should live in a skill	Critical
Cross-references use namespace syntax (humaninloop:skill-name)	Important

Phase 6: Type-Specific Audit

Reviewer agents -- Check against AGENT-GUIDELINES.md Section 7.6:

Check	Severity
Adversarial calibration present (no rubber-stamping)	Important
"What You Hunt For" section with issue categories	Important
Severity classification guidance	Important

Executor agents -- Check against AGENT-GUIDELINES.md Section 7.6:

Check	Severity
Evidence capture rules defined	Important
Escalation rules defined	Important
Model choice justified if not opus	Important

Severity Classification

Critical (MUST fix)

Issues that block shipping. Every Critical issue represents a MUST violation of AGENT-GUIDELINES.md:

• Missing required frontmatter fields (name, description, model, color)
• Name format violations (underscores, uppercase, wrong length)
• Missing <example> blocks (fewer than 2)
• Description workflow leakage or leading with process
• Wrong writing style (first person or third person instead of second person)
• Missing required sections (Opening Identity, Core Identity, Reject, Embrace)
• Any of the five coupling leaks
• Process duplication from skills
• Body exceeding 2,000 words

Important (SHOULD fix)

Issues that weaken the agent but do not block shipping:

• Generic or decorative persona
• Core Identity missing experiential pattern
• Experiences not connected to judgments
• Procedural rules instead of character traits
• Skills Available section missing or lacking invocation guidance
• Cross-references using file paths instead of namespace syntax
• Reviewer/executor missing type-specific sections

Minor (MAY fix)

Polish issues:

• Description over 5,000 chars
• Body under 500 words or between 1,500-2,000 words
• Color conflict with sibling agents
• Fewer examples than target
• Non-optimal model choice for agent type

Verdict Levels

Verdict	Criteria	Action
PASS	Zero Critical, Zero Important	Ship immediately
PASS WITH NOTES	Zero Critical, 1-2 Important	Ship with documented deviations
NEEDS REVISION	1-3 Critical OR 3+ Important	Fix issues, re-audit
REJECT	4+ Critical	Major rewrite required

Persona Quality Indicators

Good indicators -- persona shapes behavior:

• Experiential: Based on what the agent has "seen" and "learned"
• Opinionated: Takes clear positions that influence decisions
• Actionable: Each trait connects to a judgment the agent makes
• Specific: Names concrete situations, not abstract platitudes

Bad indicators -- persona is decorative:

• Decorative: Sounds impressive, does not change behavior
• Generic: Could apply to any agent ("experienced professional who values quality")
• Abstract: Principles without grounding in specific situations
• Disconnected: Experiences listed that do not map to judgments

Output Format

Produce a structured audit report with sections for classification, metrics, anti-leak check, persona quality, skill delegation, type-specific checks, issue lists by severity, verdict, required actions, and recommendations.

See references/audit-report-template.md for the full report template with all sections and field definitions.

Common Mistakes

Skipping the Classification Step

Jumping into structure checks without first classifying the agent type causes missed type-specific requirements. A reviewer agent without adversarial calibration is a Critical miss that classification would catch.

Counting Words Including Frontmatter

Body word count MUST exclude the YAML frontmatter block. Including frontmatter inflates the count and gives false positives on the 2,000-word limit.

Treating All Coupling as Equal

All five coupling leaks are Critical, but some are more subtle than others. Sequencing knowledge ("After spec is approved") and schema knowledge (defining context file fields) are the most commonly missed. Check explicitly for each of the five patterns rather than doing a general "coupling scan."

Missing Procedural Rules in Disguise

Process duplication is not always obvious. Character-trait framing ("Rejects vague requirements") is correct. Procedural framing ("MUST use FR-XXX format") belongs in a skill. Apply the character trait vs. procedural rule test to every quality standard in the agent body.

Accepting Generic Personas

"Experienced professional who values quality and attention to detail" sounds reasonable but shapes zero behavior. Flag it as Important. A good persona names concrete experiences that connect to specific judgments.

Forgetting the Reusability Test

Passing all five individual leak checks does not guarantee reusability. An agent can have no explicit leaks but still embed assumptions that tie it to one workflow. Always end the coupling audit with the reusability test as a final gate.