audit

name	audit
description	Multi-expert audit of code, architecture, or a finished feature — at least 4 parallel reviewer agents, each with a specialization (logic, architecture/SOLID, typing, security; optionally tests, backend patterns, frontend, task-completion). Each runs its own checklist. Output is cross-validation, score, verdict, and action plan. On completion, **automatically writes an EvidencePack via forgeplan MCP** (`mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_new` + `forgeplan_update` + `forgeplan_link`) so the audit lands in the artifact graph and R_eff reflects it — no manual step required (CLI fallback if MCP not connected). Use when the user wants a sharp second pair of eyes on code, a PR, a branch diff, or a sprint. Triggers (EN/RU) — "audit", "review", "проверь код", "ревью", "оцени качество", "всё ли правильно", "code audit", "expert review", "/audit".
origin	forgeplan

Multi-Expert Audit

A panel of 4+ agents with different skills reviews code in parallel. Builds on team (Mode A/B, cleanup) — the audit recipe and domain checklists live here.

---

Project Context (read first)

If /setup has been run in the project, concrete paths and commands live in:

• @docs/agents/paths.md — where source, tests, and docs live
• @docs/agents/build-config.md — build/test/lint/typecheck commands for post-audit verification
• @CONTEXT.md — domain glossary (use when reasoning about business logic)

Check via test -f docs/agents/paths.md. If present — pass the contents into each reviewer's prompt. If not — auto-detect: glob over sources, read package.json, Cargo.toml, or go.mod for commands.

Never assume specific paths or stack — read docs/agents/*.md or discover in the current session.

---

When to Use

• A feature, sprint, or PR is ready and needs a thorough review.
• The user says "review", "audit", "проверь", "оцени качество", "всё ли правильно".
• Before merging a large branch.
• After implementing an RFC — verify "delivered vs. requested".

When Not to Use

• A few lines of code — a linter or typechecker is enough.
• A simple syntax fix — use code-reviewer as a single agent.
• Pure architectural advice without reading code — single agent with architect-reviewer.

---

Core Rule: Minimum 4 Agents

Every audit = at least 4 specialized agents, running in parallel. Fewer is a point review, not an audit. More than 6 = token explosion.

---

Architecture (5 Phases)

Phase	What it does
1. Scope Analysis	Identify what to review; find the original spec (RFC/TODO/issue); pick the panel
2. Parallel Review	Spawn 4–6 agents in parallel via TeamCreate
3. Task Completion Check	Compare "delivered vs. requested"
4. Synthesis & Verdict	Cross-validation, score, verdict, action plan
5. Evidence Capture (MANDATORY)	Auto-publish EVID via mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_new + forgeplan_link; prompt for activation; CLI fallback if MCP missing

---

Phase 1: Scope Analysis

1a. What to Review

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

Signal	Action
Specific files	Read them in full, embed in prompts
Feature / module	Glob + Grep, collect all relevant files
"latest changes"	git diff HEAD~1 or git diff --staged
PR #N	gh pr diff N
RFC reference	Find the RFC file, extract phases/tasks
"sprint" / "sprint X"	Find all files changed during the sprint

1b. Find the Original Task (for Phase 3)

Sources of "what was requested":

• RFC / design doc — Phase or Implementation TODO section.
• TODO file — specific [x]/[ ] items on the topic.
• Sprint plan (if sprint was used).
• Branch name (often references RFC/issue).
• GitHub Issue / Linear ticket (if mentioned).

If nothing is found — skip Phase 3 and note it in the final report.

1c. FILE_LIST

Up to 30 files. For files >500 lines — pass only relevant sections (or the original diff).

1d. Panel Selection (min 4, max 6)

Mandatory 4 — always:

#	Agent name	subagent_type (examples)	Focus	Checklist (see below)
1	logic-reviewer	code-reviewer / general-purpose	Logic + business correctness	Algorithms, edge cases, race conditions, idempotency
2	arch-reviewer	architect-reviewer / architect-review	SOLID + architecture	DI, dependency direction, patterns, over-engineering
3	type-reviewer	typescript-pro / typescript-type-auditor or (other languages) general-purpose	Typing / type safety	any/casts/non-null, generic constraints, schema↔type alignment
4	security-reviewer	security-auditor / security-expert	Security + error handling	OWASP, injection, PII, swallowed errors, DoS

For non-TS projects, type-reviewer becomes lint-reviewer (static analysis, mypy/clippy/etc).

Optional (by scope):

#	Name	When
5	test-reviewer	Tests exist or should exist
6	backend-reviewer (backend-architect / microservices-architect)	Backend services, inter-service, persistence
7	frontend-reviewer (frontend-developer / nextjs-developer)	UI, state, UX
8	task-reviewer (general-purpose)	RFC/TODO with explicit checklist — completeness verification needed

1e. Selection Matrix

Scope	Panel (≥4)
Backend feature	logic + arch + type + security + test (5)
Full-stack feature	logic + arch + type + security + frontend + test (6)
Microservices	logic + arch + type + security + backend (5)
Types/interfaces only	logic + arch + type + security (4)
Sprint/RFC completion	logic + arch + type + security + test + task (6)
Quick review	logic + arch + type + security (4)

---

Phase 2: Parallel Review

TeamCreate(team_name="audit-{scope}") + spawn all agents in parallel in a single message.

Prompt Template (shared)

## Expert Audit Assignment

**Role**: {your specialization}
**Scope**: {file list}
**Context**: {what was built / changed}
**Original Task**: {RFC/TODO ref — what was requested}

### Task
Review the code from YOUR expert perspective. Be CRITICAL but fair.
Read every file carefully. Focus on your domain expertise.

### Files to Review
{actual file contents pasted here}

### Domain Checklist (your area)
{domain-specific checklist — see below}

### IMPORTANT: Task Completion Check
Compare what was IMPLEMENTED against what was REQUESTED.
List items as:
- ✅ Done correctly
- ⚠️ Done but with issues
- ❌ Not done / missing
- 🔄 Done differently than requested (explain)

### Output Format (STRICT)

## {Your Role} Review

### Score: X/10

### Task Completion
- ✅ ...
- ⚠️ ...
- ❌ ...

### Critical Issues (must fix)
- [C1] file.ts:line — Description. Fix: what to do.

### Warnings (should fix)
- [W1] file.ts:line — Description. Suggestion: ...

### Positive Findings
- [P1] ...

### Verdict
ONE of: APPROVE | APPROVE_WITH_FIXES | REQUEST_CHANGES | REJECT

### Key Recommendation (1-2 sentences)

Domain Checklists

logic-reviewer

• Algorithmic correctness.
• Edge cases: null, undefined, empty, 0, negative, very large.
• Race conditions: concurrent access, shared mutable state.
• Off-by-one, boundary conditions.
• Fire-and-forget — are errors lost silently?
• Caching: invalidation, stale data, thundering herd.
• Idempotency: is a repeated call safe?
• Resource cleanup (listeners, timers, connections, file handles).

arch-reviewer (SOLID + Architecture)

• S: Single Responsibility.
• O: Open/Closed — extension without modification.
• L: Liskov Substitution.
• I: Interface Segregation — interfaces not bloated.
• D: Dependency Inversion — depend on abstractions, not concrete classes.
• DI through constructors, no monkey-patching.
• Direction: no circular deps.
• Over-engineering vs under-engineering.
• Consistency with existing codebase patterns (study analogous modules).
• Error model — typed errors vs generic exceptions.

type-reviewer (TS / Rust / Python with type hints / etc.)

• any / unknown — every any is a potential runtime bug.
• as casts / unsafe coercions.
• Non-null assertions (!) — where a type guard would do.
• Generic constraints correct.
• Duck typing: does the shape match real data?
• Schema (Zod/Pydantic/etc.) ↔ type alignment.
• Discriminated unions for state machines.
• Inline types vs named exports (DRY).
• At boundaries — unknown + parsing instead of any.

security-reviewer

• OWASP Top 10: injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, IDOR, broken auth.
• Input validation at boundaries (user input, API params, file uploads).
• Output encoding (encodeURIComponent, HTML escape, SQL params).
• PII / sensitive data: not logged, not stored in plaintext.
• Error handling: try/catch, no swallowed errors without reason.
• DoS vectors: unbounded loops, arrays, memory growth.
• Limits on user input (size, rate, count).
• Tenant / authorization isolation at every layer.
• Secrets: no hardcoded values, env vars verified.

test-reviewer

• All public methods covered by tests.
• Edge cases: empty, error, timeout, null.
• Negative tests: what if everything breaks?
• Mock quality: realistic mocks, not stub placeholders.
• Backward compatibility: old code not broken.
• Integration: E2E flow covered?
• Determinism: tests not flaky.
• Test isolation: no shared state.
• Missing tests: concrete list with rationale.

backend-reviewer

• Service boundary violations.
• Inter-service communication: right mechanism?
• Tenant / auth isolation in every query / action.
• Idempotency and retry safety.
• Event-driven patterns: right transport?
• Error resilience: what if a dependency is down?
• Resource cleanup: connections, listeners.
• Observability: traces, metrics, structured logs.

frontend-reviewer

• State management: where state lives, no duplication.
• API data — in the right cache layer (Query/SWR), not in the client store.
• Components: composability, props vs context.
• Accessibility (a11y): ARIA, keyboard nav, contrast.
• Performance: rerenders, memoization, code splitting.
• UX: loading / error / empty states.
• Routing: correct router usage.

task-reviewer

• Every item from RFC / TODO / spec — implemented?
• Implemented literally or differently? If differently — why?
• Docs / changelog updated?
• Tests for each new item?

---

Phase 3: Task Completion Check

After all reports — the leader builds a table:

### Task Completion Matrix

| # | Original Task | Status | Details |
| - | ------------- | ------ | ------- |
| 1 | task from RFC | ✅ Done / ⚠️ Issues / ❌ Missing | what exactly |
| 2 | ...           | ...                            | ...          |

### Completion Rate: X/Y tasks (Z%)

If completion < 80% → verdict cannot be APPROVE.

---

Phase 4: Synthesis & Verdict

4a. Cross-Reference

• Consensus (multiple agents flag the same issue) → high confidence.
• Unique (one agent caught it) → verify importance.
• Conflict (agents disagree) → present both sides.

4b. Overall Score

Weighted average (1-10):

Agent	Weight	Reason
logic-reviewer	1.3	Logic bugs hardest to catch later
arch-reviewer	1.2	Architecture costly to fix
security-reviewer	1.2	Security bugs critical
type-reviewer	1.0	Type safety baseline
test-reviewer	0.8	Tests can be added later
backend-reviewer	0.8	Service patterns
frontend-reviewer	0.8	UI patterns
task-reviewer	0.7	Task completion

4c. Final Verdict

Condition	Verdict
All APPROVE + completion ≥ 80%	APPROVE
Majority APPROVE, some APPROVE_WITH_FIXES	APPROVE_WITH_FIXES
Any REQUEST_CHANGES	REQUEST_CHANGES
Any REJECT or completion < 50%	REJECT

4d. Final Report

# Audit Report: {target}

**Panel**: {agents used with skills}
**Files reviewed**: N files, ~M LOC
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Original Task**: {ref}

## Overall Score: X.X/10
## Task Completion: X/Y (Z%)
## Verdict: {APPROVE | APPROVE_WITH_FIXES | REQUEST_CHANGES | REJECT}

---

### Task Completion Matrix
| # | Task | Status | Details |

### Consensus Issues (2+ agents agree)
| # | Severity | Issue | Agents | File:Line |

### Unique Findings
| # | Agent | Severity | Issue | File:Line |

### Debate (agents disagree)
| Issue | For | Against | Recommendation |

### Positive Highlights
- top 5 things done well

### Action Plan (priority order)
1. [CRITICAL] ...
2. [WARNING] ...
3. [NICE-TO-HAVE] ...

4e. Ask the User

Options:
1. ✅ Apply ALL fixes (critical + warnings)
2. 🔧 Critical only
3. 📋 Walk through one by one
4. ❌ Reject — I'll do it myself

---

Phase 5: Evidence Capture (MANDATORY)

Why this phase exists. Without an EvidencePack, an /audit run disappears: forgeplan score won't reflect it, forgeplan health reports blind spots on the audited artifact, and the next session has no record the review happened. The skill — not the user — is responsible for closing the loop. Skipping this phase silently is a contract violation (PRD-077 FR-011).

5a. Detect target artifact(s)

From Phase 1 scope, extract any forgeplan IDs the audit covered:

Source	How to extract
/audit PRD-NNN form	ARTIFACT_IDS = ["PRD-NNN"] (explicit)
Branch name feat/prd-NNN-…	Regex `(PRD
RFC/TODO reference found in Phase 1b	Use that ID
Commit body Refs: PRD-NNN, RFC-MMM	Parse Refs: lines from git log
No artifact (ad-hoc code audit, no spec)	ARTIFACT_IDS = [] — handled in 5d

5b. Probe MCP availability (one call)

# True if forgeplan MCP server is wired in this session
have_mcp = "mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_new" in available_tools

If have_mcp is unclear, attempt mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_health(). Connection error → have_mcp = False, proceed to 5e fallback, never silently skip.

5c. Map verdict → structured fields

Final Verdict (from 4c)	verdict: field	Rationale
APPROVE	supports	Audit confirms the artifact is correct
APPROVE_WITH_FIXES	supports	Net positive — fixes are minor warnings
REQUEST_CHANGES	weakens	Significant gaps but not fundamental
REJECT	refutes	Audit refutes the implementation's claim of done

Constants for every audit EVID:

• congruence_level: 3 — /audit reads the actual code under review (CL3 same-context)
• evidence_type: code_review

5d. MCP-first flow (have_mcp = True)

# 5d.1 — Create the EvidencePack (draft)
scope_label = "<panel-summary>"   # e.g. "PRD-077 backend feature" or "ad-hoc src/auth/"
crit_n  = len(consensus_critical + unique_critical)
high_n  = len(consensus_high  + unique_high)
defer_n = len([f for f in findings if f.deferred])

evid = mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_new(
    kind="evidence",
    title=f"{scope_label}: audit — {n_reviewers} reviewers, "
          f"{crit_n} CRIT/HIGH closed, {defer_n} deferred"
)
EVID_ID = evid["id"]   # e.g. "EVID-142"

# 5d.2 — Fill the body (full Phase 4d report + Structured Fields)
body = textwrap.dedent(f"""\
## Structured Fields

verdict: {verdict_field}            # supports | weakens | refutes — see 5c
congruence_level: 3                 # CL3 — direct same-context code review
evidence_type: code_review

## Audit Summary

- **Panel**: {panel_with_subagent_types}
- **Files reviewed**: {n_files} files, ~{loc} LOC
- **Original task ref**: {rfc_todo_ref or "ad-hoc"}
- **Overall score**: {overall_score}/10
- **Task completion**: {done}/{total} ({pct}%)
- **Final verdict**: {final_verdict}

## Findings

{findings_table}                    # consensus + unique, severity-sorted

## Reproduction

For each finding:
- **File**: `{file}:{line}`
- **Reproduce**: `{command_or_test}`
- **Fix**: {one-line remediation}

## Pipeline Gate Results

{cargo_fmt_result} {cargo_check_result} {cargo_test_result} {cargo_clippy_result}

## Recommendation

{key_recommendation}
""")

mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_update(id=EVID_ID, body=body)

# 5d.3 — Link to every target artifact (informs relation)
for target in ARTIFACT_IDS:
    mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_link(
        source=EVID_ID,
        target=target,
        relation="informs"
    )

# 5d.4 — Score parent artifacts (so user sees R_eff move immediately)
for target in ARTIFACT_IDS:
    mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_score(id=target)

If ARTIFACT_IDS is empty (ad-hoc code audit, no spec found in 5a):

• Skip the forgeplan_link loop entirely.
• The EVID stands alone — still discoverable via forgeplan list -k evidence and forgeplan search.
• Add a note: line in the body: note: ad-hoc audit — no parent artifact (no link emitted).
• Optional: also create a Note artifact (forgeplan_new(kind="note", title="Ad-hoc audit of <scope>")) and link the EVID to it, if the audit produced reusable lessons. Don't force this — let the user decide.

5e. Shell fallback (have_mcp = False)

Warn the user explicitly — do NOT silently skip:

⚠️  forgeplan MCP not connected — falling back to CLI.
   Run `/mcp` to verify, or `/fpl-init` to wire it up.
   Evidence capture is mandatory — copy/paste these commands now:

EVID_ID=$(forgeplan new evidence "<scope>: audit — <N> reviewers, <X> CRIT/HIGH closed, <Y> deferred" --json | jq -r '.id')
$EDITOR ".forgeplan/evidence/${EVID_ID}-"*.md   # fill Structured Fields + body
forgeplan link "$EVID_ID" <ARTIFACT-ID> --relation informs    # repeat per target
forgeplan score <ARTIFACT-ID>
forgeplan activate "$EVID_ID"

If forgeplan CLI is also missing → print the manual artifact path and contents the user must write, and surface this as a WARN in the final report.

5f. Activation prompt

EVID-{ID} drafted and linked to {", ".join(ARTIFACT_IDS) or "(no parent)"}.

Activate EVID-{ID} now? [y/N]
  y → mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_activate(id="EVID-{ID}")  (or CLI: forgeplan activate EVID-{ID})
  N → keep as draft; activate later with:
      forgeplan activate EVID-{ID}

On y: call mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_activate(id=EVID_ID). If validation gate fails (missing structured fields, etc.), surface the error and keep the EVID in draft — don't retry silently. Relay any _next_action hint from the MCP response verbatim.

5g. Final user-facing output

Append to the bottom of the Phase 4d report so the user sees the EVID landed prominently:

---

### 📎 Evidence Captured

- **EVID**: `EVID-{ID}` ({draft|active})
- **Verdict**: {supports|weakens|refutes} · CL3 · code_review
- **Linked to**: PRD-NNN, RFC-MMM   (or "ad-hoc — no parent")
- **R_eff impact**: see `forgeplan score PRD-NNN`
- **Tool path**: MCP (forgeplan_new + link + activate)   ← or "CLI fallback (MCP not connected)"

5h. Post-hoc / retroactive EVID (sibling pattern)

The auto-flow above covers work that just completed. For work already done in a prior session that never got an EVID (e.g. cross-worktree race fix shipped in v0.31.0 but unlinked) the skill cannot reconstruct the audit from scratch. Use this manual template once, then return to the auto-flow:

# Post-hoc EVID for past work — manual, one-shot
evid = mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_new(
    kind="evidence",
    title=f"{PROB_ID} retro: <fix summary> shipped <version>"
)
mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_update(id=evid["id"], body=textwrap.dedent(f"""\
## Structured Fields

verdict: supports
congruence_level: 2          # CL2 — reconstructed from git log + commit refs, not live review
evidence_type: measurement   # or audit/test depending on what's being recorded

## Reconstruction Source

- **Commits**: {git_log_oneline_range}
- **Files touched**: {git_diff_stat_summary}
- **Tests added**: {test_paths}
- **Shipped in**: <version-or-tag>

## Why retro (not auto)

<one-line reason — e.g. "work predates FR-011 autopublish; PROB-067 closure
identified in 2026-05-13 audit retrospective">

## Outcome

<verdict + measured impact>
"""))
mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_link(source=evid["id"], target=PROB_ID, relation="informs")
# Optionally: forgeplan_link to the merged PR commit SHA as a Note
mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_activate(id=evid["id"])

Use CL2 (not CL3) for retro EVIDs — you reconstructed the evidence from git log and diffs, not from a live multi-reviewer audit. This is honest about the lower congruence and keeps forgeplan score calibrated.

When this is the right tool: closing a PROB whose fix shipped without an evidence link, recording a measurement that was taken but never persisted, or formalising an ADR's empirical outcome long after the decision.

When this is NOT the right tool: live audits (use Phase 5a-5g); future planning (use a Note); speculative claims without git/test backing (don't fabricate evidence).

---

Token Budget

• Max 6 agents per audit.
• Files — embed in the prompt (the agent should not re-read them).
• Large files (>500 lines) — only relevant sections / diff.
• Each prompt: ≤8000 tokens.
• Each response: ~1500–2500 tokens.

---

Error Handling

Symptom	Action
Agent crashed/timed out	Note in the report, don't block others
Empty scope	Ask the user
Scope > 30 files	Split or ask the user to narrow
All APPROVE, but type-check / build fails	Override to REQUEST_CHANGES
No RFC/TODO	Skip Phase 3, note in the report

---

Cleanup

After synthesis — shutdown teammates → TeamDelete() (Mode A) / just wait for completion (Mode B). See cleanup checklist in team.

---

Related Skills

• team — foundation (Mode A/B, file ownership, cleanup).
• research — pre-audit research.
• sprint — audit usually follows a sprint.
• do — sprint → audit pipeline.
• rfc — update RFC after audit (Implementation Log + Insights).

Anti-patterns

• Fewer than 4 agents — that's a point review, not an audit.
• One agent with a giant "review everything" prompt — domain focus is lost.
• Score 8/10 without consensus issues — suspicious, ask for cross-validation.
• APPROVE at 50% completion — violates the Phase 3 rule.
• Files passed by reference instead of content — agents re-read and burn tokens.
• Skipping Phase 5 ("I'll write the evidence later") — violates the PRD-077 FR-011 contract. The skill MUST emit an EVID (MCP) or print the CLI fallback with a WARN. Never "silently succeed" without evidence.
• Activating EVID with empty Structured Fields — congruence_level defaults to CL0 (penalty 0.9), R_eff collapses to 0.1. Always fill verdict: + congruence_level: 3 + evidence_type: code_review before activating.
• Inventing a parent artifact ID just to have one to link — if Phase 5a finds no real artifact, leave ARTIFACT_IDS empty and let the EVID stand alone. Fabricated links pollute the dependency graph.

---

Forgeplan integration

This skill is forgeplan-aware and forgeplan-active: Phase 5 above is mandatory, not advisory. The skill itself calls mcp__forgeplan__forgeplan_new + forgeplan_update + forgeplan_link + (on user opt-in) forgeplan_activate. No /audit run ends without an EVID drafted (or, if neither MCP nor CLI are reachable, an explicit WARN and copy-paste recovery block).

Anti-pattern: "I'll write the evidence later"

Historically /audit only recommended forgeplan new evidence. Users routinely forgot the step, blind spots accumulated, and forgeplan health reported unhealthy on artifacts that had in fact been reviewed. PRD-077 FR-011 closed this gap by making EVID emission part of the skill flow, not a follow-up checklist item. Do not "save it for later" — by the next prompt, the audit context is gone.

Companion skill

Install forgeplan-workflow and use /forge-audit for the artifact-scoped variant (claim slot + 6 reviewers including Performance & Documentation + identical evidence emission). /audit (this skill) is the general-purpose flavour; /forge-audit is /audit pre-bound to a forgeplan artifact ID with multi-agent claim/release wiring.