Source profileQuality 84/100

aAAaqwq/AGI-Super-Team/skills/agent-skills-audit/SKILL.md

audit-code

Run a two-pass, multidisciplinary code audit led by a tie-breaker lead, combining security, performance, UX, DX, and edge-case analysis into one prioritized report with concrete fixes. Use when the user asks to audit code, perform a deep review, stress-test a codebase, or produce a risk-ranked remediation plan across backend, frontend, APIs, infra scripts, and product flows.

Source repository stars
82
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-08-04
Source checked
2026-08-04

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

Run a two-pass, multidisciplinary code audit led by a tie-breaker lead, combining security, performance, UX, DX, and edge-case analysis into one prioritized report with concrete fixes.

Best for

  • Use when the user asks to audit code, perform a deep review, stress-test a codebase, or produce a risk-ranked remediation plan across backend, frontend, APIs, infra scripts, and product flows.

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/aAAaqwq/AGI-Super-Team --skill "skills/agent-skills-audit"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "audit-code" from https://github.com/aAAaqwq/AGI-Super-Team/blob/a1b3bf19948a6f3da84347c920a23fc2799d8824/skills/agent-skills-audit/SKILL.md at commit a1b3bf19948a6f3da84347c920a23fc2799d8824. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Workflow

    Follow this sequence every time:

    Build ContextBuild Invariant Coverage MatrixData-link invariants: multi-table relationships that must remain consistent.
  2. 02

    Required Inputs

    Collect or infer the following: - Audit scope: paths, modules, PR diff, or whole repository. - Product context: PRD/spec/user stories, trust boundaries, and critical business flows. - Runtime context: deployment model, queue/cron/background jobs, traffic profile, data sensitivit…

    Audit scope: paths, modules, PR diff, or whole repository.Product context: PRD/spec/user stories, trust boundaries, and critical business flows.Runtime context: deployment model, queue/cron/background jobs, traffic profile, data sensitivity, and abuse assumptions.
  3. 03

    Team Roles

    Use exactly these roles: - Security expert - Performance expert - UX expert - DX expert - Edge case master - Tie-breaker team lead

    Security expertPerformance expertUX expert
  4. 04

    Quality Bar

    Enforce these requirements: - Use concrete evidence with file references and line numbers where available. - Include reproduction steps for security/performance/edge findings when feasible. - Prefer actionable fixes over abstract advice. - Separate confirmed defects from specula…

    Use concrete evidence with file references and line numbers where available.Include reproduction steps for security/performance/edge findings when feasible.Prefer actionable fixes over abstract advice.
  5. 05

    Safety and Policy Guardrails

    Apply these guardrails while auditing: - Do not provide operational abuse instructions or exploit weaponization details. - Evaluate manipulative UX patterns as legal/trust/reputation risk, not as recommended growth tactics. - Prioritize user safety, system integrity, and maintai…

    Do not provide operational abuse instructions or exploit weaponization details.Evaluate manipulative UX patterns as legal/trust/reputation risk, not as recommended growth tactics.Prioritize user safety, system integrity, and maintainable engineering outcomes.

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score84/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars82SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
aAAaqwq/AGI-Super-Team
Skill path
skills/agent-skills-audit/SKILL.md
Commit
a1b3bf19948a6f3da84347c920a23fc2799d8824
License
MIT
Collected
2026-08-04
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

Audit Code

Overview

Run an expert-panel audit with strict sequencing and one unified output document. Produce findings first, sorted by severity, with file references, exploit/perf/flow impact, and actionable fixes.

Load references/audit-framework.md before starting the analysis.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer the following:

  • Audit scope: paths, modules, PR diff, or whole repository.
  • Product context: PRD/spec/user stories, trust boundaries, and critical business flows.
  • Runtime context: deployment model, queue/cron/background jobs, traffic profile, data sensitivity, and abuse assumptions.
  • Constraints: timeline, acceptable risk, and preferred remediation style.

If product context is missing, state assumptions explicitly and continue.

Team Roles

Use exactly these roles:

  • Security expert
  • Performance expert
  • UX expert
  • DX expert
  • Edge case master
  • Tie-breaker team lead

The tie-breaker lead resolves conflicts, prioritizes issues, and produces the final single report.

Workflow

Follow this sequence every time:

  1. Build Context Read code + product flows. Identify assets, entry points, high-risk operations, privileged actions, external dependencies, and "failure hurts" journeys.

  2. Build Invariant Coverage Matrix Before specialist pass 1, map critical invariants to every mutating path (HTTP routes, webhooks, async jobs, scripts):

  • Data-link invariants: multi-table relationships that must remain consistent.
  • Auth lifecycle invariants: disable/revoke semantics for sessions/tokens/API keys.
  • Input/transport invariants: validation, content-type policy, body-size/parse behavior.
  • Shape invariants: trees/graphs must reject cycles where applicable. Treat missing parity across equivalent paths as a finding candidate.
  1. Pass 1 Specialist Reviews Run role-specific analysis in this order:
  • Security
  • Performance
  • UX
  • DX
  • Edge case master Capture findings using the schema in references/audit-framework.md.
  1. Tie-Breaker Reconciliation Resolve disagreements:
  • Decide whether contested items are true issues.
  • Set severity and confidence.
  • Remove duplicates and merge overlapping findings.
  1. Cross-Review Pass 2 After edge-case findings, rerun specialists:
  • Security/Performance/UX/DX reassess prior findings and new edge-triggered scenarios.
  • Edge case master performs a final pass on residual risk after proposed mitigations.
  1. Final Report Publish one document from the tie-breaker lead with:
  • Findings first (ordered by severity, then blast radius, then exploitability).
  • Open questions/assumptions.
  • Remediation plan with priority, owner type, and verification tests.
  • Short executive summary at the end.

Quality Bar

Enforce these requirements:

  • Use concrete evidence with file references and line numbers where available.
  • Include reproduction steps for security/performance/edge findings when feasible.
  • Prefer actionable fixes over abstract advice.
  • Separate confirmed defects from speculative risks.
  • Mark confidence for each finding.
  • Run a cross-route consistency sweep: equivalent endpoints/jobs must enforce equivalent invariants.
  • For each High/Critical finding, include at least one focused regression test/check.

Safety and Policy Guardrails

Apply these guardrails while auditing:

  • Do not provide operational abuse instructions or exploit weaponization details.
  • Evaluate manipulative UX patterns as legal/trust/reputation risk, not as recommended growth tactics.
  • Prioritize user safety, system integrity, and maintainable engineering outcomes.

Output Format

Follow this response structure:

  1. Findings List only validated issues. Use the finding schema in references/audit-framework.md.

  2. Open Questions / Assumptions State missing context that could change priority or validity.

  3. Change Summary Summarize high-impact remediation themes in a few lines.

  4. Suggested Verification List focused tests/checks to confirm each major fix.

Runtime Heuristics

When the target stack is Bun + SQLite, apply the runtime-specific checklist in references/audit-framework.md (Runtime-Specific Heuristics (Bun + SQLite)) before finalizing findings.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 976

mgiovani/cc-arsenal

team-review

Multi-agent review team: architecture, security, performance, testing, style, docs/UX, plus an adversary that cross-examines the other 6, for security-sensitive, architectural, or large PRs (15+ files) where a single-agent pass risks missing cross-cutting issues. Use for auth/payments/PII changes, schema/pattern changes, compliance sign-off, or when asked to 'get the review team on this' / 'multi-agent review' / 'thorough review before merge'. For a standard PR or a quick pre-merge check, use /r

Computed 9381,553

addyosmani/agent-skills

browser-testing-with-devtools

Tests in real browsers via Chrome DevTools MCP. Use when building or debugging anything that runs in a browser. Use when you need to inspect the DOM, capture console errors, analyze network requests, profile performance, or verify visual output with real runtime data. Requires the chrome-devtools MCP server to be configured.

Computed 9239,896

vercel-labs/agent-browser

dogfood

Systematically explore and test a web application to find bugs, UX issues, and other problems. Use when asked to "dogfood", "QA", "exploratory test", "find issues", "bug hunt", "test this app/site/platform", or review the quality of a web application. Produces a structured report with full reproduction evidence -- step-by-step screenshots, repro videos, and detailed repro steps for every issue -- so findings can be handed directly to the responsible teams.

Computed 921,315

daymade/claude-code-skills

frontend-visual-qa

Audits already-rendered web, landing-page, HTML deck/slide, browser tool/game, dashboard/admin, design-system, and desktop UIs using real-browser or native-app journeys, inspected screenshots, DOM geometry, responsive or projection viewports, and a bundled Playwright sweep. Use after UI implementation to find typography, wrapping, overlap, overflow, responsive, route, overlay, map, transient-state, data-visualization, browser-output, file-dialog, PDF/print, or Electron-shell defects, or to compa