| name | agent-native-audit |
| description | Audit checklist for evaluating an existing codebase against agent-native architecture principles to identify parity gaps. Use when auditing for agent-native readiness, before adding a new agent capability, or when triaging agent-behavior regressions. |
| user-invokable | false |
What It Does
Step-by-step audit procedure for evaluating a codebase's agent-native
architecture maturity. Where agent-native-architecture codifies the
principles, this skill codifies the audit process — what to inventory,
what to measure, what to flag. The
yellow-review:review:agent-native-reviewer agent uses this checklist for
incremental PR reviews; /yellow-debt:debt:audit-style full audits use it
for codebase-wide assessments.
When to Use
- Onboarding to a codebase that has agent integration and you need to
understand its current parity status.
- Before adding a new agent capability — confirm existing patterns first.
- Auditing a codebase that's adding agent integration for the first time —
identify the orphan-feature surface area.
- Triaging "the agent feels broken" complaints — narrow to which principle
is failing.
Usage
Step 0: Triage
Answer three questions before scanning:
-
Does this codebase have agent integration at all? Search for tool
definitions, system prompt construction, or LLM API calls. If none
exists, every user-facing action is an orphan feature — that is the
single top finding. Recommend where agent integration should be
introduced.
-
What stack? Identify where UI actions and agent tools are defined
using the table in agent-native-architecture skill.
-
Incremental or full audit? For a PR review, focus on new/modified
code. For a full audit, scan systematically.
Step 1: Map the Landscape
Inventory:
- UI actions — buttons, forms, navigation links, gestures, keyboard
shortcuts. Grep for
onClick, onSubmit, onTap, Button,
onPressed, form actions.
- Agent tools — tool definitions and where registered. Grep for
tool(, function_call, tools:, framework-specific decorators.
- System prompt construction — static string vs. dynamically built
with runtime state. Grep for prompt template strings, prompt-builder
functions.
- Context sources — where the agent gets information about resources,
recent activity, capabilities, vocabulary.
Step 2: Build the Capability Map
Cross-reference UI actions against agent tools:
| UI Action | Location | Agent Tool | In Prompt? | Priority | Status |
|-----------|----------|------------|------------|----------|--------|
| Rename project | src/projects/RenameDialog.tsx | rename_project | yes | must-have | OK |
| Archive project | src/projects/ArchiveBtn.tsx | (none) | n/a | must-have | GAP |
| Theme toggle | src/settings/Theme.tsx | (none) | n/a | low | observation |
Flag must-have and should-have gaps as Critical or Warning. Low-priority
gaps are Observations only.
Step 3: Check Context Parity
Verify the system prompt includes:
- Available resources — files, data, entities the user can see
- Recent activity — what the user has done recently
- Capabilities mapping — what tool does what
- Domain vocabulary — app-specific terms explained
Red flags:
- System prompt is a static constant string with no runtime substitution
- Agent doesn't know what resources exist (asks "what's the project name?"
when the project context should be injected)
- Agent doesn't understand app-specific terms
Step 4: Check Tool Design
For each tool:
- Inputs are data, not decisions —
store(key, value) is data;
process(message) with internal categorization is a decision tool.
- Output is rich enough to verify success — return IDs, URLs, or
structured confirmation, not just
"Done!".
- Errors are actionable — tell the agent what to try next.
- Idempotent if commonly retried — or returns audit-friendly
output (timestamps, request IDs).
Workflow-tool detection:
- Tool body branches on input data (
if (priority > 3), switch (category))
- Tool calls multiple downstream services in sequence
- Tool returns success regardless of which path it took (no surface for
the agent to reason about which thing happened)
Step 5: Check Shared Workspace
- Agent file operations use the same paths as the UI?
- UI observes changes the agent makes (file watching, reactive store)?
- No separate "agent sandbox"?
- Users can inspect and edit agent-created artifacts?
Step 6: The Noun Test
After actions, audit by domain object. For every noun in the app,
the agent should:
- Know what it is (context injection)
- Have a tool to interact with it
- See it documented in the system prompt
A noun failing all three is critical for must-have entities.
Output
A capability map with status column, a list of gaps grouped by priority
tier, and a verdict: PASS / NEEDS WORK / CRITICAL.
## Agent-Native Architecture Audit
### Summary
[App type, agent integration present, parity assessment]
### Capability Map
[Table from Step 2]
### Findings
#### Critical (Must Fix)
1. **[Issue]** — `file:line` — [Description]. Fix: [How]
#### Warnings (Should Fix)
1. **[Issue]** — `file:line` — [Description]. Recommendation: [How]
#### Observations
1. **[Observation]** — [Description]
### What's Working Well
- [Positive observations]
### Score
- **X/Y high-priority capabilities are agent-accessible**
- **Verdict:** PASS / NEEDS WORK / CRITICAL
What This Skill Doesn't Cover
- The principles themselves — see
agent-native-architecture skill
for the canonical reference.
- CLI agent-readiness — see
cli-readiness-reviewer and
agent-cli-readiness-reviewer agents (yellow-review).
- Generic code review — this is a domain-specific audit; pair with
correctness-reviewer, security-sentinel, etc. for full coverage.
