audit
무료Run comprehensive code audit for architecture, dead code, and test quality. Use when reviewing overall codebase health, checking for architectural violations, or before marking a feature complete.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when completing a TDD step and wanting a quality check. Reviews test quality after RED, implementation correctness after GREEN, and scenario completeness after REFACTOR.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
설치 방법 보기설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.
Step-aware quality review at TDD phase boundaries. Fires when a sub-checkbox is marked in test-definitions.md during implement phase.
Read the gate message to determine which TDD step is next:
| Gate triggered | Step just completed | Review focus |
|---|---|---|
tdd:green | RED (test written) | Review test quality |
tdd:refactor | GREEN (implementation passes) | Review implementation |
tdd:red | REFACTOR (cleanup done) | Review completed scenario |
Focused review (~1 minute). Check the test that was just written:
.toBeTruthy() or .not.toThrow().If issues found: fix before implementing. If clean: commit and proceed to implementation.
Moderate review (~1-2 minutes). Check the implementation:
If issues found: fix before refactoring. If clean: run /refactor, commit, proceed.
Full review (~2-3 minutes). The entire scenario is done. Review the complete unit:
If issues found: address before starting next scenario. If clean: commit and proceed to next [ ] RED.
Context: Agent just wrote a failing test for scenario 2 (verbose shows passing files). The tdd:green gate fires.
Agent review:
Atomic? Yes — tests one behavior (passing files appear in verbose output). Right assertions?
expect(output).toContain('src/index.ts: pass')— asserts on observable output, not internals. Good. Behavior, not implementation? Yes — checks CLI output string, not internal formatter state. Fails for the right reason?Expected string to contain 'src/index.ts: pass'— verbose output doesn't include passing files yet. Correct failure. Right test type? Integration — needs real linter execution to produce output. Unit wouldn't cover the formatter→CLI pipeline. Correct scope. Coverage gaps? Test only checks one file. Could miss edge case where zero files pass. Acceptable for now — boundary cases are in scenario 3.Clean.
Next: implement minimum code in
packages/cli/src/lint.tsto makeexpect(output).toContain('src/index.ts: pass')pass, then commit.
Every review ends with a Next: line on its own line — imperative, name the file/command/scenario. Don't end with "proceed" or "commit and move on" alone; name what to do.
**Next:** implement minimum code in {file} to make this test pass.**Next:** rewrite assertion in {file}:{line} to check observable output, then re-review.**Next:** run /refactor on {file}, then commit and mark next [ ] RED.**Next:** commit, then start scenario {N} — write the failing test in {file}.A review without a Next: line is incomplete.
[x] is marked in test-definitions.mdVoice: plainspoken and concise — write to be scanned.
아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.
로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.
아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.
Run comprehensive code audit for architecture, dead code, and test quality. Use when reviewing overall codebase health, checking for architectural violations, or before marking a feature complete.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Behavior-first feature development — use when building new capabilities, continuing feature work, or when work introduces new state or multiple user flows. Discovers desired behavior through examples and scenarios before implementation. Do NOT use for bug fixes, typos, or small isolated changes.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when the user wants to explore options, weigh approaches, or think through uncertainty before committing to a direction. Collaborative brainstorming and rubber ducking — divergence-first thinking partner.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Kill zombie dev servers and test processes. Use when ports are blocked, processes are hanging, or test runners won't start.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Root cause debugging before fixes. Use when investigating bugs, diagnosing test failures, troubleshooting unexpected behavior, or when previous fix attempts failed. Enforces investigate-first discipline.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Extract tacit knowledge through non-obvious microquestions — things only the user knows that can't be found in code, docs, or research. Use when you're about to guess at intent, context, or constraints during SAFEWORD's understanding flow. Also use when user says 'ask me', 'what do you need to know', or when another skill (bdd, brainstorm, debug) needs user context before proceeding. Do NOT use for questions answerable by reading the codebase or searching the web.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.