contracts-audit

---

name: contracts-audit description: Checklist for auditing architecture contracts in a develop-by-contract environment. Covers the failure modes most commonly found during contract review: status drift, AI-invented decisions, cross-contract fact drift, stale feature references, missing state specs, and business policy gaps.

Contracts Audit

Use this skill when reviewing, locking, or cross-checking architecture contracts. Work through each category below. Flag every finding before making any edits — do not silently fix and move on.

---

1. Status & index integrity

• Does the file's status header (✅ Live, ⚠ Unreviewed, 🔴 Stub) match the README status table entry?
• If the contract is marked ✅ Live, was it reviewed and approved by the human owner — or did an AI session mark it Live on its own?
• If corrections are made to an already-Live contract, is the locked date updated?

Red flag: A contract marked Live whose locked date predates the current owner's involvement, or whose content contains decisions the owner has no memory of making.

---

2. AI-invented decisions

• Are specific values (prices, tier names, trial lengths, feature flags, plan IDs) presented as decided facts? If so, verify the owner actually decided them.
• Are "illustrative" or "TBD" disclaimers placed above the data they describe, not below?
• Does any section describe a feature or tier that was never actually decided (e.g., a Free tier, a marketplace flow, a team-approval chain)?

Rule: If a value or policy hasn't been explicitly decided by the product owner, the contract must say so and mark it open — not invent a plausible answer.

---

3. Cross-contract fact drift

• Is the same fact stated consistently across all contracts that reference it (e.g., a retention window, a state name, a file path)?
• When one contract is corrected, are all sibling contracts that restate the same fact updated in the same pass?
• Does a lifecycle defined in one contract have its routing/access consequences specified in the companion contract?

Pattern to catch: Contract A says "30 days"; Contract B says "6 months." One is stale. Fix both in the same commit.

---

4. Stale content from removed features

• Do any state-transition tables reference states, tiers, or flows that no longer exist?
• Do any code samples return types or import symbols from a prior model?
• Do any seed files, example objects, or entitlement lists include keys for a removed tier or feature?
• Do forbidden-patterns tables list something as wrong that the contract itself does elsewhere?

Common example: After removing a Free tier, contracts still say "downgrade to Free on cancellation," return 'free' from state functions, or include Free-tier seeds.

---

5. Contradictions within a single contract

• Do any two sections of the same contract describe the same thing differently? (e.g., §3 says local mirror; §10 says live API calls for the same data)
• Does the forbidden-patterns section list an anti-pattern that the contract's own code samples demonstrate?

---

6. Missing state specifications

• Does every state in the state machine have a corresponding routing/access spec (what routes are accessible, what is blocked, what the UI shows)?
• Is every state in the effectiveOrgState / equivalent function also described in the states table?
• When a new state is introduced in one section, is it added to the canonical states table in the same pass?

States need two things: type coverage (it exists in the type system) AND behavior coverage (what happens when you're in it).

---

7. File path correctness

• Do all file paths in the contract resolve to actual files in the current repo structure?
• Have generic {product} or {name} placeholders been resolved to actual paths where the product is known?
• Have directory names been updated after any repo renames (e.g., apps/old-product-name/ → apps/web-tenant/)?

---

8. Business policy gaps (omission-as-decision)

• Are important negative rules stated explicitly, not implied by omission?
  • "Tenants can export data without re-subscribing"
  • "There is no Free tier"
  • "Attribution link does not use rel='nofollow'"
  • "Asset IDs are immutable; never reused"
• When something intentionally does NOT exist, does the contract say so?

Rule: A future implementer will not know what was decided by omission. Explicit "there is no X" and "X is not gated by Y" statements are as important as positive specs.

---

9. Missing UI surface specs

• Is every platform UI mentioned in prose (e.g., "Platform Plans UI," "danger zone") also described as a proper UI spec with fields, actors, and access rules?
• Does every state in the system (restricted, expired, pending_deletion) have its admin routing rules documented?

---

10. Module / entitlement naming

• Are all entitlement keys named after modules or capability flags — not products?
  • ✅ announcement-server-module, customDomains, aiAltText
  • ❌ product-a-module, flagship-module, acme-module (named after products, not capabilities)
• Does any module code assume or hardcode a specific product context?

---

11. Numeric values — data-driven vs. hardcoded

• Are numeric tier values (page caps, storage, rate limits, video minutes) referenced as Plan.limits JSONB keys — not as fixed numbers in the contract?
• If the contract says "these values are set via the Platform Plans UI," are those values consistently tagged as illustrative in all other contracts that repeat them?

---

12. Code sample correctness

• Do TypeScript snippets use types consistent with the current model (return types, union members, import paths)?
• Do import statements in snippets reference current package names (no renamed or removed packages)?
• Do SQL snippets reference current table names (no renamed tables)?

---

13. SEO / link policy

• Do outbound links from product-generated content use rel="nofollow" where link equity should NOT pass, and omit it where it should?
• Is the attribution link policy explicitly stated (pass equity vs. suppress)?

---

General principles

• Contracts describe decisions, not aspirations. Undecided values must be marked open — not filled with plausible guesses.
• Every state in a state machine needs a routing spec. Type coverage ≠ behavior coverage.
• Cross-contract facts must be synced in the same pass. Don't update one file and defer the sibling.
• Negative decisions are decisions. "There is no X" is as important to document as "there is X."
• AI sessions that mark contracts Live require human sign-off. An AI reviewing its own output is not a reviewer.
• Illustrative tables need their disclaimer above the table, not below — readers scan top-down.