| name | rdx-audit |
| description | One-shot efficiency audit of a file, diff, or whole repo across BOTH axes at once: over-engineered code (reinvented stdlib, needless abstractions, speculative config) AND bloated prose (verbose comments, padded docstrings, redundant doc sections). Neither a pure code-minimizer nor a pure prose compressor does both in one pass — that's the point. Ranked report, biggest saving first; changes nothing. Use when the user says "rdx audit", "/rdx-audit", "audit this for bloat", "what can I cut", "review this PR for over-engineering and verbosity".
|
RDX Audit
Scan the target (a diff, a file, or the repo tree) and report what to cut, on
both axes. One-shot. Read-only — never edit, never write a flag, never apply fixes.
Scope
- No argument → audit the current
git diff (staged + unstaged). Empty diff → audit HEAD~1..HEAD.
- A path → audit that file or directory.
- "repo" / "whole repo" → walk the tree (skip vendored/generated/
node_modules/dist/lockfiles).
What to flag
Code (the YAGNI axis):
- Reinvented stdlib (hand-rolled debounce, deep-clone, groupBy, retry loop, date math)
- Abstraction with one implementation (interface/factory/wrapper for a single case)
- New dependency for what a few lines or an installed dep already covers
- Config/option/flag that never varies
- Speculative "for later" scaffolding with no current caller
- Verbose code where a native platform feature (CSS, DB constraint,
<input type>) does it
Prose (the compression axis) — the half a code-only auditor misses:
- Comments that restate the code (
i += 1 // increment i)
- Docstrings/READMEs padded with filler, hedging, ceremony, or duplicated content
- Multi-paragraph explanations where one tight sentence carries the meaning
- Decorative tables/emoji/headings that add tokens, not information
- Dead prose: TODO graveyards, stale "see also" links, obsolete sections
What NOT to flag
Input validation at trust boundaries, error handling that prevents data loss,
security, accessibility, deliberate // rdx: / // ponytail: shortcuts already
documented, or domain comments that explain why (not what).
Output
One ranked list, biggest cut first. One finding per line. No preamble, no praise.
path:line [code|prose] <what's bloated> → <the lean replacement>. (~N lines/tokens)
End with a two-line summary:
N findings: X code, Y prose. Est. removable: ~A lines code, ~B lines prose.
Biggest win: <the single highest-impact cut>.
Be honest about uncertainty — mark a finding (check) if cutting it might lose
behavior you can't verify from the snippet. Lean toward fewer, high-confidence
findings over a long speculative list.
