Back to skills
SkillHub ClubShip Full StackFull Stack

skill-audit

Imported from https://github.com/nyldn/claude-octopus.

Packaged view

This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.

Stars
1,585
Hot score
99
Updated
March 19, 2026
Overall rating
C4.0
Composite score
4.0
Best-practice grade
F25.2

Install command

npx @skill-hub/cli install nyldn-claude-octopus-skill-audit

Repository

nyldn/claude-octopus

Skill path: skills/skill-audit

Imported from https://github.com/nyldn/claude-octopus.

Open repository

Best for

Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.

Technical facets: Full Stack.

Target audience: everyone.

License: Unknown.

Original source

Catalog source: SkillHub Club.

Repository owner: nyldn.

This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.

What it helps with

  • Install skill-audit into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
  • Review https://github.com/nyldn/claude-octopus before adding skill-audit to shared team environments
  • Use skill-audit for development workflows

Works across

Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLIOpenCode

Favorites: 0.

Sub-skills: 0.

Aggregator: No.

Original source / Raw SKILL.md

---
name: skill-audit
version: 1.0.0
description: Systematic codebase auditing with comprehensive checklists. Use when: AUTOMATICALLY ACTIVATE when user requests auditing:. "audit and check the entire app". "audit X for Y" or "check for broken features"
---

# Systematic Audit Process

## Overview

Comprehensive, methodical auditing to find issues, inconsistencies, and broken features across a codebase.

**Core principle:** Define scope → Create checklist → Execute systematically → Report findings → Prioritize fixes.

---

## When to Use

**Use this skill when user wants to:**
- Audit entire application for issues
- Find all instances of a problem pattern
- Check for broken features systematically
- Comprehensive quality verification
- Identify inconsistencies across codebase

**Do NOT use for:**
- Security vulnerability scanning (use skill-security-audit)
- Code quality review (use skill-code-review)
- Single file searches (use Grep/Glob directly)
- Performance profiling

---

## The Process

### Phase 1: Scope Definition

#### Step 1: Understand Audit Objectives

```markdown
**Audit Objectives:**

What to audit: [app features, code patterns, specific issues]
Why auditing: [what prompted this, what problem are we solving]
Scope: [entire app, specific module, particular feature set]
Depth: [surface-level or deep inspection]
```

#### Step 2: Define Audit Criteria

Use AskUserQuestion if needed:

```markdown
**Audit Focus:**

Which aspects should I audit?
1. Functional - Do features work as expected?
2. Consistency - Are patterns applied uniformly?
3. Completeness - Are implementations finished?
4. Quality - Is code maintainable?
5. User-facing - Does UI/UX work correctly?
6. Integration - Do components work together?
```

#### Step 3: Create Audit Plan

```markdown
**Audit Plan**

**Areas to Cover:**
1. [Area 1: e.g., All form submissions]
2. [Area 2: e.g., All API endpoints]
3. [Area 3: e.g., All button states]
4. [Area 4: e.g., All error handling]

**Methodology:**
- [ ] Identify all instances
- [ ] Test each systematically
- [ ] Document findings
- [ ] Categorize by severity
- [ ] Propose fixes

**Estimated Coverage:** [X components, Y files, Z features]
```

---

### Phase 2: Discovery

#### Step 1: Identify Audit Targets

Use Glob and Grep to find all relevant code:

```markdown
**Finding Audit Targets:**

Searching for: [pattern/feature]
Method: [glob pattern or grep query]

**Found:**
1. [File 1:line]
2. [File 2:line]
3. [File 3:line]
...
N. [File N:line]

Total instances: [N]
```

#### Step 2: Create Audit Checklist

```markdown
**Audit Checklist:**

- [ ] Item 1: [component/feature to check]
  - Location: [file:line]
  - Expected: [what should happen]
  - Test: [how to verify]

- [ ] Item 2: [component/feature to check]
  - Location: [file:line]
  - Expected: [what should happen]
  - Test: [how to verify]

...

Total items to audit: [N]
```

Use TodoWrite to track audit progress.

---

### Phase 3: Systematic Execution

#### Step 1: Execute Audit Checklist

For each item:

```markdown
**Auditing Item [N]/[Total]: [Description]**

**Location:** [file:line]

**Check 1: [Test name]**
- Expected: [what should happen]
- Method: [how to test - code review, runtime check, etc.]
- Result: ✓ Pass / ❌ Fail
- Evidence: [what you observed]

**Check 2: [Test name]**
- Expected: [what should happen]
- Method: [how to test]
- Result: ✓ Pass / ❌ Fail
- Evidence: [what you observed]

**Overall Status:** ✓ Pass / ⚠️ Issues Found / ❌ Broken

**Issues:**
[If any issues, list them here]

---
```

#### Step 2: Track Progress

```
Audit Progress:
✓ [1/50] User login form
✓ [2/50] Password reset form
⚠️ [3/50] Registration form (issues found)
❌ [4/50] Contact form (broken)
⚙️ [5/50] Newsletter signup (in progress)
- [6/50] Survey form
...
```

---

### Phase 4: Analysis & Reporting

#### Step 1: Categorize Findings

```markdown
**Audit Findings Summary**

**Critical Issues (Broken Functionality):**
1. [Issue 1]
   - Location: [file:line]
   - Impact: [what's broken]
   - Severity: Critical

2. [Issue 2]
   - Location: [file:line]
   - Impact: [what's broken]
   - Severity: Critical

**Major Issues (Degraded Functionality):**
1. [Issue 1]
   - Location: [file:line]
   - Impact: [what's wrong]
   - Severity: Major

**Minor Issues (Inconsistencies/Polish):**
1. [Issue 1]
   - Location: [file:line]
   - Impact: [what's inconsistent]
   - Severity: Minor

**Passed Checks:**
- [N] items fully functional
- [List if relevant]
```

#### Step 2: Provide Statistics

```markdown
**Audit Statistics**

Total Items Audited: [N]
✓ Passed: [N] ([X%])
⚠️ Issues Found: [N] ([X%])
❌ Broken: [N] ([X%])

**By Category:**
- Critical: [N]
- Major: [N]
- Minor: [N]

**Coverage:**
- Files reviewed: [N]
- Components tested: [N]
- Code paths verified: [N]
```

---

### Phase 5: Remediation Plan

#### Step 1: Prioritize Issues

```markdown
**Recommended Fix Priority:**

**Phase 1: Critical Fixes (Do First)**
1. [Issue - file:line]
   - Why critical: [reason]
   - Estimated effort: [time]

2. [Issue - file:line]
   - Why critical: [reason]
   - Estimated effort: [time]

**Phase 2: Major Fixes (Do Next)**
1. [Issue - file:line]
   - Impact: [description]
   - Estimated effort: [time]

**Phase 3: Minor Fixes (Nice to Have)**
1. [Issue - file:line]
   - Impact: [description]
   - Estimated effort: [time]

**Total Estimated Effort:** [sum of all fixes]
```

#### Step 2: Offer to Execute Fixes

```markdown
**Next Steps:**

I found [N] issues during the audit.

Would you like me to:
1. Fix all critical issues now (estimated [time])
2. Fix issues one category at a time (critical → major → minor)
3. Let you review findings first, then decide what to fix
4. Create detailed tickets/todos for each issue

What's your preference?
```

---

## Common Patterns

### Pattern 1: Audit Entire App for Broken Features

```
User: "Create a process to audit and check the entire app for things that might be broken"

Implementation:

**Phase 1: Scope**
- Audit all user-facing features
- Check for runtime errors
- Verify expected behavior

**Phase 2: Discovery**
- List all features (from routes, components, docs)
- Create comprehensive checklist

**Phase 3: Execute**
- Test each feature systematically
- Document working vs broken

**Phase 4: Report**
- Critical: Features that crash
- Major: Features that work incorrectly
- Minor: Features with UX issues

**Phase 5: Fix**
- Prioritized remediation plan
```

### Pattern 2: Audit for Specific Pattern

```
User: "Find all instances of direct DOM manipulation and check if they should use React state"

Implementation:

**Phase 1: Scope**
- Audit: Direct DOM manipulation patterns
- Goal: Identify React anti-patterns

**Phase 2: Discovery**
- Grep for: document.querySelector, getElementById, etc.
- Found: [N] instances

**Phase 3: Execute**
- Check each instance:
  - Is there a good reason for direct DOM?
  - Should it use React state instead?
  - Is it causing bugs?

**Phase 4: Report**
- List instances that should migrate to React
- List instances that are fine as-is

**Phase 5: Fix**
- Refactor problematic instances
```

### Pattern 3: Consistency Audit

```
User: "Audit the app for button style consistency"

Implementation:

**Phase 1: Scope**
- Audit: All button elements
- Goal: Ensure consistent styling

**Phase 2: Discovery**
- Find all buttons in codebase
- Identify button component(s)

**Phase 3: Execute**
- Check each button against style guide
- Document inconsistencies

**Phase 4: Report**
- Buttons using correct component: [N]
- Buttons with inconsistent styles: [N]
- Buttons using deprecated patterns: [N]

**Phase 5: Fix**
- Standardize all buttons to design system
```

---

## Integration with Other Skills

### With skill-debug

```
Audit found a broken feature?
→ Use skill-debug to investigate root cause
→ Use systematic debugging to fix
```

### With skill-visual-feedback

```
Audit found UI inconsistencies?
→ Use skill-visual-feedback to fix visual issues
→ Ensure consistency across app
```

### With skill-iterative-loop

```
Large audit with many items?
→ Use skill-iterative-loop to process in batches
→ Loop through sections of the app
```

### With skill-security-audit

```
Audit includes security concerns?
→ Delegate security-specific checks to skill-security-audit
→ Use skill-audit for functional checks
```

---

## Best Practices

### 1. Be Systematic, Not Random

**Good:**
```
Auditing all form submissions:
1. Login form
2. Registration form
3. Password reset form
4. Contact form
5. Newsletter signup
...
(Methodical, complete)
```

**Poor:**
```
Checking some forms:
- Login form
- Maybe that contact thing
- Whatever else I find
(Random, incomplete)
```

### 2. Document Everything

For each audit item, record:
- What was checked
- How it was checked
- Result (pass/fail)
- Evidence (what you observed)

### 3. Use Categories

Group findings into meaningful categories:
- By severity (critical, major, minor)
- By type (functional, UI, consistency, performance)
- By component (forms, navigation, data display)

### 4. Make Findings Actionable

**Good:**
```
Issue: Registration form submit button doesn't work
Location: src/components/RegisterForm.tsx:45
Root cause: onClick handler missing
Fix: Add onClick={handleSubmit}
Effort: 5 minutes
```

**Poor:**
```
Issue: Some button broken somewhere
Fix: Fix it
```

---

## Red Flags - Don't Do This

| Action | Why It's Wrong |
|--------|----------------|
| Skip creating checklist | Will miss things, duplicate work |
| Test randomly without system | Incomplete coverage |
| Not documenting findings | Can't prioritize or fix later |
| Audit without clear criteria | Don't know what "pass" means |
| Fix while auditing | Confuses audit with remediation |
| Ignore patterns | Miss systemic issues |

---

## Audit Templates

### Template 1: Functional Feature Audit

```markdown
**Feature:** [Name]
**Location:** [file:line]

**Tests:**
- [ ] Feature loads without errors
- [ ] Feature responds to user input
- [ ] Feature displays correct data
- [ ] Feature handles errors gracefully
- [ ] Feature works on mobile
- [ ] Feature is accessible

**Result:** ✓ Pass / ⚠️ Issues / ❌ Broken
**Issues:** [if any]
```

### Template 2: Code Pattern Audit

```markdown
**Pattern:** [What to check]
**Instance:** [file:line]

**Checks:**
- [ ] Follows current best practices
- [ ] Consistent with codebase
- [ ] No deprecated APIs used
- [ ] Properly typed/documented
- [ ] No obvious bugs

**Result:** ✓ Good / ⚠️ Needs update / ❌ Problematic
**Notes:** [any observations]
```

### Template 3: UI Consistency Audit

```markdown
**Component:** [Name]
**Location:** [file:line]

**Checks:**
- [ ] Uses design system components
- [ ] Follows spacing guidelines
- [ ] Uses correct colors
- [ ] Typography consistent
- [ ] Responsive design works
- [ ] States handled (hover, active, disabled)

**Result:** ✓ Consistent / ⚠️ Minor issues / ❌ Inconsistent
**Issues:** [if any]
```

---

## Quick Reference

| Audit Type | Discovery Method | Check Method | Output |
|------------|------------------|--------------|--------|
| Functional | List features | Test each | Pass/fail report |
| Pattern | Grep for code | Review each instance | Compliant/non-compliant |
| Consistency | Find all instances | Compare to standard | Consistent/inconsistent |
| Completeness | List requirements | Verify each exists | Complete/incomplete |

---

## The Bottom Line

```
Systematic audit → Complete checklist + Methodical execution + Prioritized findings
Otherwise → Missed issues + Duplicate work + No clear action plan
```

**Define scope. Create checklist. Execute systematically. Report findings. Prioritize fixes.**
skill-audit | SkillHub