sub-audit

name	sub-audit
description	Run a code review and documentation audit on recent changes. Finds bugs, edge cases, missing docs, and type safety issues.
argument-hint	["scope - e.g.","auth feature","last 5 commits"]
disable-model-invocation	false
allowed-tools	Bash, Read, Grep, Glob, Agent

SubFrame Audit

Run a thorough audit on recent changes, combining code review and documentation checks.

Dynamic Context

Recent commits (last 15): !git log --oneline --no-decorate -15 2>/dev/null || echo "No git history"

Files changed vs main: !git diff --name-only main...HEAD 2>/dev/null | head -40

Instructions

Argument: $ARGUMENTS

The argument should describe the scope to audit. If empty, audit all changes since the last merge to main.

Phase 1: Identify Scope

Determine which files to audit:

• If argument specifies a feature/scope, identify the relevant files
• If empty, use git diff --name-only main...HEAD to find all changed files
• Group files by layer (e.g., backend, frontend, shared, config, tests)

Phase 2: Code Review (spawn agent)

Spawn a code review agent (feature-dev:code-reviewer subagent type) to review the changed files. The agent should check for:

1. Critical bugs — null/undefined access, race conditions, unhandled errors, infinite loops
2. Type safety — as any casts, missing type imports, loose typing where strict types exist
3. Platform issues — Windows path handling, file system edge cases
4. Security — command injection, XSS in rendered content, path traversal
5. Logic errors — off-by-one, incorrect conditions, missing edge cases

Phase 3: Documentation Audit (spawn agent)

Spawn an explore agent (Explore subagent type) to check documentation completeness:

1. AGENTS.md — Are all modules/components listed?
2. changelog.md — Does [Unreleased] reflect all new features?
3. PROJECT_NOTES.md — Are architecture decisions documented?
4. STRUCTURE.json — Is it up to date? (compare module count with actual files)

Phase 4: Report

Present findings in this format:

## Audit Report

### Critical Issues (must fix)
1. [FILE:LINE] Description — severity, impact

### Important Issues (should fix)
1. [FILE:LINE] Description — severity, impact

### Documentation Gaps
1. [FILE] What's missing

### Suggestions (nice to have)
1. Description

Confidence filtering: Only report issues you are confident about. Skip speculative concerns or style preferences. Each reported issue should include:

• Exact file and line number
• What the problem is
• Why it matters (impact)
• Suggested fix

Phase 5: Offer Fixes

After presenting the report, ask the user if they want to fix any of the reported issues. If yes, apply fixes starting with Critical → Important → Documentation.