fuck-my-shit-mountain

name

fuck-my-shit-mountain

description

Use when the user asks for a comprehensive codebase audit or structured repository health report across multiple quality dimensions such as architecture, design, security, stability, performance, testing, maintainability, release readiness, documentation, observability, configuration safety, data integrity, privacy, accessibility, supply chain, cost, AI/LLM safety, frontend state, backend API design, dependency weight, code consistency, comment coverage, or concurrency. Also supports incremental audits of changed files for PR reviews and continuous auditing workflows.

Fuck My Shit Mountain — Skill Definition

Purpose

Guide AI to perform an evidence-based, professional code audit of a software project. Despite the irreverent name, the output must be冷静 (calm), professional, actionable, and free of emotional language.

Required Inputs Before Auditing

Before deep auditing, determine whether the user has already supplied all required inputs. Ask only for missing items, in one concise message, and wait for the answer before auditing. Do not re-ask items that are already explicit in the request. A lightweight inventory of file names and manifests is allowed before asking for mode selection.

Required inputs:

1. Audit modes — Accepted values: full, incremental, architecture, security, stability, performance, testing, maintainability, design, release, documentation, observability, configuration, data-integrity, privacy, accessibility, supply-chain, cost, ai-safety, fallback, testing-authenticity, type-safety, frontend-state, backend-api, dependency-weight, code-consistency, comment-coverage, concurrency.
   • If the user picks full, do all dimensions.
   • If the user picks incremental, audit only files changed since a specified commit or branch (requires scope parameter with git reference).
   • If the user picks multiple modes, merge the audit areas from each selected prompt. Use the most specific finding format rules.
   • If audit modes are missing, run scripts/project_inventory.py <project-root> --format json when available, then recommend a few user-facing audit choices in the user's language. Examples: full audit, security and privacy focused, frontend experience focused, release and operability focused. Translate these labels into the user's language; do not lead with raw internal mode tokens.
   • Let the user reply with a number or natural-language option. Map that answer back to the modes field from the inventory recommendation. Show raw mode tokens only when the user asks for exact modes or advanced options.
2. Report language — The language used in the final report, such as English or Chinese. The setup question and audit recommendations should use this language when it is explicit; otherwise use the user's conversation language. The programming language is inferred from the repository and is not a substitute for this answer.
3. Output format — Accepted values: md, html, json, both, stdout.
   • md — Save as audit-report-<project>-<date>.md.
   • html — Save as audit-report-<project>-<date>.html.
   • json — Save as audit-report-<project>-<date>.json using templates/audit-report.json schema.
   • both — Save both md and html files.
   • stdout — Print the report in the conversation only.
   • If md, html, json, or both is requested, write the file(s) after generating the report. For HTML output, read templates/audit-report.html, copy its exact CSS and HTML structure, include the sections and score items required for the selected modes, and replace the content with actual audit data. For JSON output, follow the exact schema in templates/audit-report.json. Do not use placeholder variables; generate complete, self-contained output.
4. Audit scope (optional) — Defines what parts of the codebase to audit:
   • Path patterns: src/auth/**, payments/, *.config.js
   • Semantic labels: authentication, payments, api, frontend, backend
   • Git references: main..HEAD, v1.2.0..HEAD (for incremental mode)
   • If not provided, audit the entire project (default).
   • If provided, focus audit on matching files/areas and note scope limits in the coverage matrix.

If the user says something like "audit this project" without any of the required inputs, ask for missing inputs in one message and include localized audit recommendations. If the user says "full, Chinese, html", proceed without another setup question. Scope is optional and can be omitted.

How It Works

1. The user invokes the skill and the AI collects only the missing required inputs. If mode is missing, run scripts/project_inventory.py when available and present localized recommendation labels instead of raw mode-token dumps.
2. If scope is provided, determine the relevant files and areas to audit. For git references, use git diff --name-only <ref> to get the changed file list. For path patterns, use glob matching. For semantic labels, infer relevant directories based on project structure.
3. If intelligent weight inference is needed (for full or multi-dimension audits), analyze the project characteristics:
   • Detect languages, frameworks, and dependencies from manifests and file extensions.
   • Identify project type from README, package.json, Cargo.toml, pom.xml, or similar metadata.
   • Infer dimension weights based on detected characteristics (e.g., Django → higher security/data-integrity weight; React SPA → higher frontend-state/accessibility weight; public API service → higher observability/release weight).
   • Document the inferred weights and reasoning in the report's methodology section.
4. The AI loads the corresponding prompt(s) from prompts/. If multiple modes are selected, merge the audit areas from each.
5. The AI loads references/report-format.md for shared required-context, report template, coverage, HTML, and lint rules.
6. The AI loads the required rubrics:
   • rubrics/severity.md for severity labels.
   • rubrics/confidence.md for confidence labels.
   • rubrics/evidence.md for evidence quality and minimum evidence thresholds.
   • rubrics/coverage.md for dimension coverage confidence and reporting limits.
   • rubrics/scoring.md for score dashboards and grade anchors.
   • rubrics/principles.md when producing full, architecture, maintainability, design, documentation, frontend-state, backend-api, type-safety, configuration, data-integrity, accessibility, or principles-related findings.
7. The AI audits the codebase using the coverage strategy below.
8. Each finding is recorded using templates/issue-card.md.
9. Results are assembled using templates/audit-report.md, templates/audit-report.html, or templates/audit-report.json, depending on the requested output format.
10. If output-to-file was requested, the AI writes the report to disk.
11. Save audit metadata for historical tracking to .claude/audits/audit-<project>-<date>-metadata.json including: timestamp, commit hash, selected modes, scope, overall score, dimension scores, finding counts by severity, and file path to the full report.
12. For generated md, html, json, or both output, run the skill's scripts/report_lint.py with python3 <skill-dir>/scripts/report_lint.py --modes <selected-modes> <report-file> when the script is available. Fix lint failures before delivering the report. For stdout, apply the same checks manually.
13. If remediation planning is requested, the AI uses templates/remediation-plan.md.
14. If implementation is requested separately, the AI fixes code only after the audit/report step is complete.

Mode vs Dimension Model

• Selectable modes are user-facing audit entry points. Each mode maps to one prompt file in prompts/.
• Full dimensions are the sections covered by full mode. Full mode covers all selectable focused dimensions and marks project-inapplicable dimensions as Not assessed.
• Focused modes may affect multiple score dimensions. For example, configuration can affect Security, Stability, and Release.
• If a dimension is only conditionally relevant, such as frontend-state, accessibility, or ai-safety, inspect for applicability first and mark it Not assessed with evidence when the project lacks that surface.

Resource Loading

• Load only the prompt files for the selected modes.
• Load references/report-format.md before producing any report. Focused prompt files intentionally omit repeated setup and template rules.
• Load references/tooling.md when scanner, linter, typechecker, dependency, frontend, or AI/LLM tooling could improve evidence. Tools are optional; use configured local commands first and continue when tools are unavailable.
• Load examples from examples/ only for calibration when the user asks for examples or the report shape is unclear. Do not copy their findings into a real audit.
• Do not load large generated or vendored files into context unless the selected mode specifically requires them.

Audit Boundary

By default, this skill audits and reports. It may create requested report files, but it must not change application source code, tests, configuration, or dependencies unless the user explicitly asks for remediation implementation.

Coverage Strategy

Be exhaustively systematic over in-scope project files, not literally every byte in the repository.

1. Start with scripts/project_inventory.py when available, then use fast project-aware search such as rg --files for deeper coverage.
2. Build a project map before writing findings: entry points, main modules, architecture boundaries, data flow, state ownership, persistence, data integrity boundaries, privacy-sensitive data, external interfaces, security boundaries, AI/model surfaces, observability surfaces, configuration sources, tests, CI, release files, and dependency manifests.
3. Treat first-party source, tests, scripts, CI/config, migrations, dependency manifests, and documentation that describes behavior as in scope.
4. Exclude by default: .git, dependency folders (node_modules, vendor unless first-party vendored code must be audited), build artifacts (dist, build, target, out, coverage, .next, .nuxt), generated files, minified bundles, binary assets, cache folders, and lockfiles unless the selected mode needs dependency or release evidence.
5. For large repositories, prioritize high-risk areas first: auth, input boundaries, persistence, data integrity, privacy-sensitive data, AI/model tool boundaries, concurrency, network/file-system access, error handling, observability gaps, build/release config, supply-chain surfaces, cost drivers, and critical user workflows.
6. Assign coverage confidence per selected dimension using rubrics/coverage.md: High, Medium, Low, or Not assessed.
7. Include a short coverage note in the report, usually in Project Map or Executive Summary: inspected areas, excluded path categories, important commands run, and any time or access limits.
8. Include a coverage matrix in the report with one row per selected dimension: dimension, coverage confidence, inspected evidence, exclusions/limits.
9. If a file or area could not be inspected, say so explicitly. Do not imply complete coverage when coverage was partial.

Sensitive Information Handling

If the audit discovers secrets, tokens, private keys, .env values, credentials, database dumps, or similarly sensitive material:

• Do not print the full secret in the report, terminal output, commit message, or conversation.
• Identify the path, variable/key name, secret type, and risk. Redact values as <redacted> or show at most a minimal prefix/suffix when necessary for disambiguation.
• Recommend rotation when exposure is plausible.
• Treat sensitive files as evidence of risk without copying their contents into the generated report.

Modes

Mode	Prompt	Focus
full	prompts/full-audit.md	All dimensions + principles
incremental	prompts/incremental-audit.md	Diff-based audit of changed files since git reference
architecture	prompts/architecture-audit.md	Module boundaries, dependency direction, state ownership
security	prompts/security-audit.md	Security risks
stability	prompts/stability-audit.md	Reliability & errors
performance	prompts/performance-audit.md	Realistic bottlenecks
testing	prompts/testing-audit.md	Test quality & gaps
maintainability	prompts/maintainability-audit.md	Complexity, coupling, principles
design	prompts/design-audit.md	Engineering principles and design risk
release	prompts/release-audit.md	Release readiness
documentation	prompts/documentation-audit.md	Docs accuracy, setup, operator/developer guidance
observability	prompts/observability-audit.md	Logging, metrics, tracing, health checks, alerting
configuration	prompts/configuration-audit.md	Config validation, defaults, feature flags, env separation
data-integrity	prompts/data-integrity-audit.md	Transactions, idempotency, migrations, invariants
privacy	prompts/privacy-audit.md	PII, minimization, retention, deletion, data governance
accessibility	prompts/accessibility-audit.md	Keyboard, focus, semantics, responsive and UX states
supply-chain	prompts/supply-chain-audit.md	Provenance, reproducibility, CI integrity, signing
cost	prompts/cost-audit.md	Resource economics, budgets, external API and LLM costs
ai-safety	prompts/ai-safety-audit.md	Prompt injection, tool auth, RAG leakage, evals, cost abuse
fallback	prompts/fallback-audit.md	Silent fallback, catch, defensive guessing
testing-authenticity	prompts/testing-authenticity-audit.md	Real confidence vs green checkmarks
type-safety	prompts/type-safety-audit.md	Unsafe blocks, assertions, boundary types
frontend-state	prompts/frontend-state-audit.md	Component size, state, effects, coupling
backend-api	prompts/backend-api-audit.md	API design, validation, data access patterns
dependency-weight	prompts/dependency-weight-audit.md	Overweight deps, build toolchain
code-consistency	prompts/code-consistency-audit.md	Naming, imports, patterns, style uniformity
comment-coverage	prompts/comment-coverage-audit.md	Doc quality, stale comments, missing docs
concurrency	prompts/concurrency-audit.md	Race conditions, deadlocks, atomicity, shared state, locking

Scoring

Full audits produce a score dashboard with 7 dimension scores (0.0–10.0) and an overall score. Focused audits score only the relevant dimensions and mark unrelated dimensions as not assessed when the template needs that context.

• Higher = better. 10 = clean / production-ready. 0 = shit mountain / unacceptable. Do not reverse this.
• Scores are judgment-based, not mechanical deductions. The AI evaluates evidence holistically per dimension.
• Each score must have a one-sentence justification referencing the strongest evidence and the coverage confidence when it limits the conclusion.
• A letter grade (S/A/B/C/D/F) provides an at-a-glance health indicator.
• Scores supplement detailed findings — they do not replace them.

Rules (Non-negotiable)

1. Every finding MUST include concrete evidence (file, function, behavior).
2. Separate Confirmed issues from Suspected issues.
3. Do not exaggerate severity — map to rubrics/severity.md.
4. Do not recommend rewrites unless local fixes are clearly insufficient.
5. Prefer the smallest practical fix that reduces real risk.
6. Do not produce generic advice. Every finding must tie to a realistic failure scenario.
7. Do not complain about style unless it creates a demonstrable maintainability or correctness risk.
8. If evidence is insufficient, say so. Do not fabricate findings.
9. Every finding MUST include a regression test suggestion.
10. Every finding MUST include an estimated effort.
11. Check violations of engineering principles using rubrics/principles.md — focus on violations that create real risk, not minor style quarrels.
12. Be exhaustively systematic. Search all in-scope first-party areas, not just the obvious hotspots. Use the coverage strategy above and document exclusions honestly.
13. Do not be a yes-man. Do not suppress findings because the user seems confident, or because you want to be agreeable. Your job is to identify real risks objectively, regardless of who wrote the code or what the user expects to hear. If the code has problems, say so.
14. Use the skill's template format, not the project's style. The report MUST follow templates/audit-report.md (or templates/audit-report.html for HTML output). For HTML output: copy the exact CSS and HTML structure from the template (stat cards, selected-dimension score rows, top risks table, detailed findings, per-dimension sections with tables+checklists, design principles when applicable, fix order tables, quick wins grid). Only replace content — keep all HTML classes, CSS variables, and section ordering intact. Do NOT invent new section structures. Do NOT copy formatting, structure, or style from markdown files inside the audited project.
15. Do not expose secrets. Report sensitive findings with redaction as described above.
16. Do not modify audited code unless the user explicitly requests implementation, not just an audit.

Final Self-Check

Before delivering the report, verify:

• Required inputs are known and the report uses the requested language and output format.
• If setup questions were needed, recommendations were presented in the user's language and raw mode tokens were not the primary user-facing choice labels.
• The selected prompt(s), required rubrics, and report template were followed.
• The report contains a project map, coverage note, coverage matrix, score dashboard, finding statistics, top risks, detailed findings, relevant dimension sections, principles compliance when applicable, fix order, and quick wins.
• Each selected dimension has coverage confidence, inspected evidence, and exclusions/limits.
• Every finding has severity, confidence, status, evidence, realistic failure scenario, minimal fix, regression test suggestion, and estimated effort.
• Confirmed and Suspected issues are separated or clearly labeled.
• Score direction is correct: 10.0 is best and 0.0 is worst.
• HTML reports are complete, self-contained, and contain no placeholder variables.
• No full secrets, tokens, private keys, passwords, or sensitive dumps appear in the output.
• scripts/report_lint.py passes for generated file output, or its checks were applied manually for stdout output.