audit

name	audit
description	Multi-domain codebase audit: security, contracts, patterns, observability, and ops. Invoke as `/audit [domain?]` where domain is one of: security | contracts | patterns | observability | ops | all (default). Use whenever the user asks to audit or review a codebase for issues, wants a security review, asks what's wrong with the code, requests a pre-release or pre-merge quality check, or wants a comprehensive inspection across quality dimensions. Trigger proactively on "audit", "security review", "code review", "what issues does this codebase have", or "check before we ship".
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"author":"synapsync","version":"1.0","scope":"project","auto_invoke":false}
allowed-tools	Read, Glob, Grep, Bash

Overview

Run a structured, evidence-based audit of a codebase. Two phases always run in order: first detect context, then apply the requested domains.

Usage: /audit [domain?]

• No domain → run all domains (default)
• Available domains: security | contracts | patterns | observability | ops | all

Safety

Do not run destructive operations (DB resets, production deploys, mass deletes, git push --force, etc.) unless the user explicitly asks in the same session. Use read-only inspection: read files, Glob, Grep, and read-only git commands (git log -1, git grep) — no history rewrites.

---

Phase 1 — Context Detection

Always runs first. Read the project to understand what you're working with. Identify and state explicitly:

• Language(s): Go, Python, TypeScript, Rust, etc.
• Runtime / framework: gRPC, FastAPI, Next.js, Express, Django, etc.
• Auth mechanism: JWT, sessions, OAuth, API keys, none
• Data layer: SQL (which DB), NoSQL, ORM, raw queries, none
• Infra: Docker, Kubernetes, serverless, bare metal
• API surface: REST, gRPC, GraphQL, tRPC, WebSockets
• Test strategy: unit, integration, e2e, none / partial
• CI: GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, none, unknown

Minimum reads before Phase 2

Read at least:

• Root directory layout (top-level dirs)
• One dependency manifest (go.mod, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml)
• One main entrypoint or app bootstrap (cmd/, main.go, src/index.ts)
• One config example (env template, config.toml, docker-compose.yml, etc.)

Large / monorepo / polyglot repos

If the repo is large or a monorepo:

1. State each major component (gateway/, services/profile/, contracts/) with its own mini-context if stacks differ.
2. Prioritize: entrypoints, public API routes, auth boundaries, contract sources (proto, OpenAPI), CI workflows, infrastructure that defines secrets and CORS/TLS.
3. Deep-dive additional files only when a risk is indicated or the domain requires it. Say what you sampled — don't claim you read the entire tree.

Output findings in a Context block (see Output Format). If the project is ambiguous, split by component.

Do not proceed to Phase 2 until Phase 1 is complete.

---

Phase 2 — Audit Domains

Apply each requested domain using the context from Phase 1. Adapt every check to what actually exists — skip checks for components that are not present (e.g. don't require a GraphQL schema if there is no GraphQL).

security

Core questions:

• Is authentication enforced where it should be? Are public routes explicit, not accidentally open?
• Are secrets (keys, passwords, tokens) absent from code, committed config, and history? Flag tracked .env with real values, hardcoded production keys, etc.
• Is user input validated at the boundary before business logic / persistence?
• Are security headers present on HTTP responses where applicable?
• Is session / token invalidation possible and enforced on logout / revoke (if applicable)?
• Known CVEs: only report as a finding if you ran a supported scanner in this session (govulncheck, osv-scanner, npm audit). Otherwise state: NOTE: Dependency CVE posture not verified in this run (no scanner executed). — this is an explicit gap, not a PASS.

Optional when relevant: CORS correctness (credentials + allowlist), admin/docs exposure in production, idempotency of sensitive operations.

contracts

Core questions:

• Does the declared API surface (spec, schema, types, proto) match the actual implementation?
• Are breaking changes guarded, versioned, or documented?
• Is documentation (OpenAPI, GraphQL schema, exported types) generated from a single source of truth vs manually maintained (drift risk)?
• Do internal consumers depend on the declared contract, not leaked implementation details?

patterns

Core questions:

• Is error handling explicit / typed where the language encourages it? Avoid leaking stack traces or internal messages to untrusted clients.
• Dependency direction: avoid disallowed cycles / layer violations for this codebase's stated architecture.
• Configuration: loaded and validated at startup, not scattered ad-hoc getenv calls in domain logic.
• Abstractions: justified by actual use, not speculative.
• Idioms: respect language / framework conventions.
• State: mutation boundaries are clear (who owns mutable state, concurrency).

observability

Core questions:

• Are errors logged with enough context to diagnose without a debugger (request id, route, safe fields)?
• Does logging avoid PII at routine levels (emails, tokens, full bodies, secrets)? Flag high-risk patterns.
• Health checks: do they reflect dependencies (DB, Redis) or only process liveness?
• Metrics / tracing at boundaries (HTTP, gRPC, DB, external APIs) if the stack claims production readiness.

ops

Core questions:

• Build / images: reproducible enough for the team (lockfiles, pinned bases)? No secrets baked into images without a documented rotation story?
• CI: does the pipeline run what it claims (lint, types, unit tests, contract checks)? Gaps between "we care about this" and "what actually runs" are findings.
• Dependencies: lockfiles + verification (go mod verify, lockfile install) where applicable.
• Local / onboarding: can a new engineer run the stack from documented steps (README, compose, make), or is it tribal knowledge?
• Migrations / deploys: documented rollback or "safe retry" story where relevant.

---

Behavior Rules

1. Evidence first. Read or search the repo before claiming a finding. If you infer, label it INFERRED (needs confirmation) and state what file would confirm it.
2. Findings only. Report items that are WRONG, INCOMPLETE, or create REAL RISK. Do not summarize what looks good. Do not list compliments.
3. Empty domain. If a domain has no findings, output [DOMAIN] PASS and continue.
4. Location. Prefer path/to/file:line. If the issue is process-wide (missing CI job, no policy), use Location: (process / CI / policy) and name the artifact that should exist.
5. Fix. Must be actionable. Use a short code or config block when it fits. For architectural fixes, describe steps and interfaces; a patch is optional.
6. Severity (every finding):
   • BLOCKER — must fix before merge
   • HIGH — must fix before production
   • MEDIUM — fix this sprint
   • LOW — document and defer
7. End with a verdict: AUDIT PASSED or AUDIT FAILED, with counts.

Verdict rule: AUDIT FAILED if any BLOCKER exists. Optionally fail on HIGH if the user instructed stricter gates in the chat.

---

Output Format

## Context
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Domains audited: ...

Language(s): ...
Runtime / framework: ...
Auth: ...
Data layer: ...
Infra: ...
API surface: ...
Tests: ...
CI: ...
Sampling notes (if large repo): ...

## Audit Report — [domains] — YYYY-MM-DD

### SECURITY
[BLOCKER|HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW] Short title
Location: path:line OR (process / CI / policy)
Impact: one concrete sentence (what breaks, what leaks, what drifts)
Fix: actionable steps; optional code block if helpful

### CONTRACTS
(same pattern)

### PATTERNS
(same pattern)

### OBSERVABILITY
(same pattern)

### OPS
(same pattern)

---
## Verdict: AUDIT PASSED | AUDIT FAILED
Blockers: N | High: M | Medium: K | Low: J

---

Quick Domain Map

Domain	Typical artifacts
security	auth middleware, routes, secrets, CORS, headers, dependency scan (if run)
contracts	proto, OpenAPI, GraphQL schema, generated clients, CI *-check jobs
patterns	layers, errors, config loading, module boundaries
observability	logging, metrics, health checks, tracing
ops	Dockerfile, compose, CI YAML, migration docs, lockfiles