create-audit-agent

name	create-audit-agent
description	Creates new Claude Code agent configuration files or audits existing ones in .claude/agents/. Validates frontmatter, routing keywords, body-frontmatter alignment, ecosystem integration, and cross-agent consistency using a 17-point checklist.
metadata	{"author":"Alexander-M-Dickerson"}

Agent Creator & Auditor

Two modes: Create a new agent or Audit an existing one.

Examples

• /create-audit-agent my-data-expert -- create a new agent
• /create-audit-agent audit my-data-expert -- audit a specific agent
• /create-audit-agent audit all -- audit all agents with summary table

Mode Selection

Parse $ARGUMENTS:

• audit, audit <name>, or audit all → Audit mode
• Anything else (name, description, or empty) → Create mode

---

CREATE MODE

Five phases: Gather → Reference → Generate → Register → Verify.

Phase 1: Gather Requirements

1a. Scan existing agents

List all .md files in .claude/agents/ to prevent name collisions and understand existing scope.

1b. Ask the user

If $ARGUMENTS contains a name or description, use it. Otherwise, use AskUserQuestion with all of the following:

1. Name: lowercase-with-hyphens identifier (e.g., my-data-expert)
2. Purpose: What domain does this agent cover? What databases, tables, or APIs does it work with?
3. Key routing terms: What keywords should trigger delegation? (database names, table names, acronyms, paper names)
4. Tools needed: What tools should the agent have? (read-only vs full access, specific tools)
5. Skills: Should any skills be injected at startup? (e.g., wrds-psql)
6. Model: inherit (default), sonnet, opus, or haiku?

1c. Skill vs Agent decision

Before proceeding, ask: "Is this a known, rigid workflow with fixed inputs?" If yes, recommend a skill (/create-skill) instead. Agents are for tasks requiring judgment, discovery, or error recovery. Skills run in the caller's context with zero spawn overhead (75-80% fewer tokens). See docs/AGENT_LESSONS_LEARNED.md for rationale.

1d. Check for overlap

Compare the user's answers against existing agents. If there's scope overlap (same tables, same databases), warn the user and ask whether to:

• Extend the existing agent instead
• Create a new focused agent with clear scope boundaries
• Proceed anyway

Phase 2: Generate

Build the agent .md file:

Frontmatter:

---
name: [validated name]
description: "[WHAT + WHEN statement with 3 <example> blocks including <commentary>]"
tools: [appropriate tool list]
model: [inherit unless specified]
---

Description requirements:

• Include 3+ <example> blocks with realistic user queries, assistant responses, and <commentary>
• Include ALL key routing keywords: database names, table names, schema names, acronyms
• State WHAT the agent does and WHEN to use it
• Under 1024 characters (but multi-line with examples can be longer in practice)

Body structure:

You are [role description matching frontmatter scope].

**Before running any psql query, invoke the `wrds-psql` skill** [if applicable]

## Overview
[Domain knowledge, key paper references, data sources]

## Table(s)
[Schema.table names with brief descriptions]

## Database Connection
[Connection pattern]

## [Domain-Specific Sections]
[Filters, identifiers, signal names, etc.]

## Example Queries
[2+ tested query patterns with explanations]

## Gotchas
[Data quality issues, common mistakes, edge cases]

Body rules:

• Opening paragraph must match frontmatter description scope exactly
• Under 400 lines preferred (warn at 400, fail at 600). Every line costs tokens on every spawn.
• No Windows paths, no verbose fundamentals Claude already knows
• Every paragraph must earn its token cost — if content exists in .claude/rules/, reference it with a one-liner instead of duplicating
• Routing rule: Create a corresponding entry in .claude/rules/workflow.md (or similar) stating WHEN to use this agent. Description-based routing is opt-in; rule-based routing is enforced.

3b. Show draft

Print the complete agent file to the user before writing. Ask if they want changes.

3c. Write

Write to .claude/agents/{name}.md.

Phase 3: Register

4a. CLAUDE.md

Add the agent to the specialist agent list in root CLAUDE.md under "WRDS Database Access" (for WRDS agents) or appropriate section.

4b. Orchestrator dispatch table

If this is a WRDS agent, add a row to .claude/agents/wrds-query-orchestrator.md in the "Specialized Agents Available" table.

Print confirmation:

Agent created: .claude/agents/{name}.md
Lines: {count}
Registered in: CLAUDE.md, wrds-query-orchestrator.md

Phase 4: Verify

Run the full 17-point audit checklist (from Audit Mode below) against the new agent. Report results. Fix any FAIL items before considering the skill complete.

---

AUDIT MODE

Four phases: Read → Analyze → Report → Fix.

Phase 1: Read

Parse the audit target from $ARGUMENTS:

• audit <name> → read .claude/agents/{name}.md
• audit all → list and read all .md files in .claude/agents/
• audit (no target) → list all agents as a numbered list, ask which to audit (or offer all)

Also read:

• Root CLAUDE.md to check ecosystem integration (specialist agent section)
• .claude/agents/wrds-query-orchestrator.md to check dispatch table (for WRDS agents, if it exists)

Phase 2: Analyze

Run 17 checks grouped in 5 categories. For each: PASS, WARN, or FAIL.

A. Frontmatter Quality

A1. Name Valid

• PASS: name present, matches ^[a-z][a-z0-9-]{0,63}$, no reserved words ("anthropic", "claude"), not generic
• WARN: Name valid but generic (e.g., helper, data-agent, utils)
• FAIL: Missing name, invalid characters, or contains reserved words

A2. Description Present

• PASS: description present, non-empty, under 1024 characters
• WARN: Present but under 50 characters (likely too vague for routing)
• FAIL: Missing or empty

A3. Description Has Examples

• PASS: 3+ <example> blocks with realistic user queries and <commentary>
• WARN: 1-2 <example> blocks
• FAIL: Zero <example> blocks

A4. Routing Keywords Present

Scan body for database names, schema.table patterns (e.g., contrib.global_factor, crsp.dsf), key acronyms, and paper/author names. Check if each appears in the description.

• PASS: All key domain terms from body appear in description
• WARN: 1-2 key terms in body missing from description
• FAIL: 3+ key terms in body not in description (routing will fail — the JKP problem)

A5. Tools Field

• PASS: tools field present with tool list appropriate for agent's role
• WARN: tools omitted (inherits all — may be intentional but worth noting)
• FAIL: Role mismatch — read-only agent with Write/Edit, or WRDS agent missing Bash

B. Body-Frontmatter Alignment

B6. Scope Match

Compare body opening paragraph with frontmatter description scope.

• PASS: Body scope matches description (same databases, same domain, same capabilities)
• WARN: Minor drift (body mentions something not in description, but it's related)
• FAIL: Body documents completely different databases/tools than description claims

B7. Keyword Coverage

Extract all schema.table patterns, database identifiers, acronyms, and domain terms from body. Compute what percentage appear in description.

• PASS: 90%+ of body domain terms appear in description
• WARN: 70-90% coverage
• FAIL: Under 70% (high routing failure risk)

B8. No Orphan Knowledge

Check if body contains substantial documentation for databases/tools/workflows NOT mentioned in the description.

• PASS: All body content falls within description's stated scope
• WARN: One tangential topic (brief mention)
• FAIL: Body includes substantial content outside description scope

C. Body Quality

C9. Skill Invocation

• PASS: Body includes explicit skill invocation (e.g., "Before running any psql query, invoke the wrds-psql skill")
• WARN: Skill referenced but not as an explicit "invoke" instruction
• FAIL: No skill invocation for an agent that should use skills (e.g., any WRDS agent)
• N/A: Agent doesn't use skills (mark as PASS)

C10. Structured Sections

Check for organized sections with headers.

• PASS: Has Overview, Tables/Schema, Examples, and Gotchas sections (or equivalent)
• WARN: Missing 1-2 expected sections
• FAIL: Unstructured wall of text or only 1 section

C11. Example Queries

• PASS: 2+ example queries or code blocks that are syntactically plausible
• WARN: Only 1 example
• FAIL: No examples in body

C12. Line Count & Token Efficiency

Every line in an agent body is loaded on every spawn. Treat agent definitions like hot code paths.

• PASS: Under 400 lines; no sections that duplicate .claude/rules/ content
• WARN: 400-600 lines, or body contains sections that restate rules already in .claude/rules/ (suggest replacing with one-liner references like "See .claude/rules/api-gotchas.md for parameter validation")
• FAIL: Over 600 lines, or >50 lines duplicating rules files (move to rules, reference them)

C13. Anti-Patterns

Check for: Windows-style backslash paths, verbose explanations of fundamentals Claude already knows, magic numbers without justification, menus without defaults.

• PASS: None found
• WARN: 1-2 minor instances
• FAIL: Systemic anti-pattern usage

D. Ecosystem Integration

D14. CLAUDE.md Registration

Check root CLAUDE.md for the agent under the specialist agent section.

• PASS: Listed with name and description matching the agent's actual scope
• WARN: Listed but description differs from agent's actual description/scope
• FAIL: Not listed at all

D15. Orchestrator Dispatch Table

For WRDS agents only: check .claude/agents/wrds-query-orchestrator.md dispatch table.

• PASS: Listed in orchestrator with matching use-case description
• WARN: Listed but description/scope outdated
• FAIL: Not in dispatch table (orchestrator won't route to it)
• N/A: Not a WRDS agent (mark as PASS)

E. Cross-Agent Consistency

E16. Scope Overlap

Compare this agent's documented tables/schemas against all other agents.

• PASS: No table or schema documented in multiple agents (or overlap is an intentional cross-reference with clear ownership)
• WARN: 1-2 tables appear in multiple agents without clear ownership designation
• FAIL: Substantial schema overlap with another agent (creates routing ambiguity)

E17. Tool Allocation Consistency & Minimality

Each unused tool adds ~200 tokens of JSON schema to every spawn. Start minimal, add only when needed.

• PASS: Tool set is minimal for the agent's role; every listed tool is actually used in the agent's workflows
• WARN: 1-2 unnecessary tools present (e.g., WebFetch on an agent that never fetches URLs, Edit on an agent that only generates scripts)
• FAIL: 3+ unused tools, missing essential tools, or dangerous allocation (Write on read-only agent)

Phase 3: Report

Print structured report:

AGENT AUDIT: {name}
=============================
File: .claude/agents/{name}.md | Lines: {count} | Model: {model}

A. FRONTMATTER          B. ALIGNMENT           C. BODY QUALITY
[PASS] A1 Name          [PASS] B6 Scope        [PASS] C9  Skill invocation
[PASS] A2 Description   [WARN] B7 Keywords     [PASS] C10 Sections
[PASS] A3 Examples      [PASS] B8 Orphans      [PASS] C11 Examples
[FAIL] A4 Routing                               [PASS] C12 Lines ({n})
[PASS] A5 Tools                                 [PASS] C13 Anti-patterns

D. ECOSYSTEM            E. CONSISTENCY
[PASS] D14 CLAUDE.md    [PASS] E16 Overlap
[PASS] D15 Orchestrator [PASS] E17 Tools

SUGGESTIONS:
1. [A4] Add "contrib.global_factor" and "JKP" to description — these
   key body terms are missing from routing metadata.
2. [B7] Keyword coverage is 75% — consider surfacing "permno",
   "gvkey" in description.

RESULT: 15/17 passed, 1 warning, 1 failure

For all mode, print each agent's report separately, then a summary table:

SUMMARY: {N} agents audited
==============================
| Agent                       | Pass | Warn | Fail |
|-----------------------------|------|------|------|
| crsp-wrds-expert            |  16  |   1  |   0  |
| jkp-wrds-expert             |  17  |   0  |   0  |
| bonds-wrds-expert           |  15  |   1  |   1  |
| ff-wrds-expert              |  16  |   0  |   1  |
| optionmetrics-wrds-expert   |  17  |   0  |   0  |
| taq-wrds-expert             |  16  |   1  |   0  |
| paper-reader                |  15  |   2  |   0  |
| wrds-query-orchestrator     |  16  |   1  |   0  |

Phase 4: Fix (Optional)

After reporting, offer to fix FAIL items:

• "Would you like me to fix the {N} FAIL items? I'll show each proposed change before applying."
• A4/B7 (routing keywords): propose updated description with missing terms added
• D14 (CLAUDE.md): propose adding agent to specialist section
• D15 (orchestrator): propose adding row to dispatch table
• B6 (scope mismatch): propose updated body opening paragraph
• Other items: describe the fix, get approval, apply

Never auto-fix without showing the proposed change first.

---

Communication Rules

• Before Phase 1 (either mode), print: Reading agent configuration and reference material...
• In Create mode, always show the complete draft before writing
• In Audit mode, if auditing multiple agents, print each report separately then the summary
• If a newly created agent fails its own audit, fix it before considering the skill complete
• Use the compact report format above — avoid walls of prose

---

Source: Alexander-M-Dickerson/ai-asset-pricing — distributed by TomeVault.