本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

deep-audit

Deep consistency audit of the entire repository — launches 4 parallel specialist agents to find factual errors, code bugs, broken references, count mismatches, and cross-document inconsistencies, then fixes all issues and loops until clean. Make sure to use this skill whenever the user wants a comprehensive repository-wide check — not a targeted review of a single file. Triggers include: "audit", "deep audit", "find inconsistencies", "check everything", "run a full audit", "are there any broken references", "check the whole repo", "something feels off", "run the audit loop", or after making broad changes across multiple files.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

/deep-audit — Repository Infrastructure Audit

Run a comprehensive consistency audit across the entire repository, fix all issues found, and loop until clean.

When to Use

  • After broad changes (new skills, rules, hooks, guide edits)
  • Before releases or major commits
  • When the user asks to "find inconsistencies", "audit", or "check everything"

Workflow

PHASE 1: Launch 4 Parallel Audit Agents

Launch these 4 agents simultaneously using Task with subagent_type=general-purpose:

Agent 1: Guide Content Accuracy

Focus: README.md, CLAUDE.md, rules/workflow-overview.md

  • All numeric claims match reality (skill count, agent count, rule count, hook count)
  • All file paths mentioned actually exist on disk
  • All skill/agent/rule names match actual directory names
  • No stale counts from previous versions

Agent 2: Hook Code Quality

Focus: hooks/*.py and hooks/*.sh

  • No remaining /tmp/ usage (should use ~/.claude/sessions/)
  • Hash length consistency ([:8] across all hooks)
  • Proper error handling (fail-open pattern: top-level try/except with sys.exit(0))
  • JSON input/output correctness (stdin for input, stdout/stderr for output)
  • Exit code correctness (0 for non-blocking, non-zero only when intentionally blocking)
  • from __future__ import annotations for Python 3.8+ compatibility
  • Correct field names from hook input schema (source not type for SessionStart)
  • PreCompact hooks print to stderr (stdout is ignored)

Agent 3: Skills and Rules Consistency

Focus: skills/*/SKILL.md and rules/*.md

  • Valid YAML frontmatter in all files
  • No stale disable-model-invocation: true
  • allowed-tools values are sensible
  • Rule paths: reference existing directories
  • No contradictions between rules
  • CLAUDE.md skills table matches actual skill directories 1:1
  • All templates referenced in rules/guide exist in templates/

Agent 4: Cross-Document Consistency

Focus: README.md, CLAUDE.md

  • All feature counts agree across both documents
  • All links point to valid targets
  • Directory tree matches actual structure
  • No stale counts from previous versions

PHASE 2: Triage Findings

Categorize each finding:

  • Genuine bug: Fix immediately
  • False alarm: Discard (document WHY it's false for future rounds)

Common false alarms to watch for:

  • Quarto callout ## Title inside ::: divs — this is standard syntax, NOT a heading bug
  • allowed-tools linter warning — known linter bug (Claude Code issue #25380), field IS valid
  • Counts in old session logs — these are historical records, not user-facing docs

PHASE 3: Fix All Issues

Apply fixes in parallel where possible. For each fix:

  1. Read the file first (required by Edit tool)
  2. Apply the fix
  3. Verify the fix (grep for stale values, check syntax)

PHASE 4: Documentation Check

This plugin does not maintain a Quarto source file. If README.md or CLAUDE.md were modified, verify they are consistent with each other — no render step is needed.

PHASE 5: Loop or Declare Clean

After fixing, launch a fresh set of 4 agents to verify.

  • If new issues found → fix and loop again
  • If zero genuine issues → declare clean and report summary

Max loops: 5 (to prevent infinite cycling)

Key Lessons from Past Audits

These are real bugs found across 7 rounds — check for these specifically:

Bug PatternWhere to CheckWhat Went Wrong
Stale counts ("19 skills" → "21")Guide, README, landing pageAdded skills but didn't update all mentions
Hook exit codesAll Python hooksExit 2 in PreCompact silently discards stdout
Hook field namespost-compact-restore.pySessionStart uses source, not type
State in /tmp/All Python hooksShould use ~/.claude/sessions/<hash>/
Hash length mismatchAll Python hooksSome used [:12], others [:8]
Missing fail-openPython hooks __main__Unhandled exception → exit 1 → confusing behavior
Python 3.10+ syntaxType hints like `dictNone`
Missing directoriesquality_reports/specs/Referenced in rules but never created
Always-on rule listingGuide + READMEmeta-governance omitted from listings
macOS-only commandsSkills, rulesopen without xdg-open fallback
Protected file blockingsettings.json editsprotect-files.sh blocks Edit/Write

Output Format

After each round, report:

## Round N Audit Results

### Issues Found: X genuine, Y false alarms

| # | Severity | File | Issue | Status |
|---|----------|------|-------|--------|
| 1 | Critical | file.py:42 | Description | Fixed |
| 2 | Medium | file.qmd:100 | Description | Fixed |

### Verification
- [ ] No stale counts (grep confirms)
- [ ] All hooks have fail-open + future annotations
- [ ] Guide renders successfully
- [ ] docs/ updated

### Result: [CLEAN | N issues remaining]

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

a1

無料

VS-Enhanced Research Question Refiner - Prevents Mode Collapse and derives differentiated research questions Enhanced VS 3-Phase process: Modal question avoidance, alternatives presentation, differentiated RQ recommendation Use when: refining research ideas, formulating research questions, clarifying scope Triggers: research question, 연구 질문, PICO, SPIDER, research idea

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,6042026年10月12日 更新

a2

無料

VS-Enhanced Theoretical Framework Architect with Critique & Visualization Full VS 5-Phase process: Modal theory avoidance, Long-tail exploration, differentiated framework presentation Absorbed A3 (Devil's Advocate) critique and A6 (Conceptual Framework Visualizer) capabilities Use when: building theoretical foundations, designing conceptual models, deriving hypotheses, critiquing frameworks, visualizing models Triggers: theoretical framework, 이론적 프레임워크, conceptual model, 개념적 모형, hypothesis derivation, critique, devil's advocate, 반론, visualization, diagram

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,6042026年10月12日 更新

a5

無料

Agent A5 - Paradigm & Worldview Advisor - Philosophical foundations for research design. Covers ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology alignment. Use when: establishing philosophical foundations, justifying methodological choices, writing positionality statements Triggers: paradigm, 패러다임, ontology, epistemology, worldview, 세계관, philosophical foundations, 철학적 기초

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,6042026年10月12日 更新

Academic paper writing skill with 12-agent pipeline. v2.5: Style Calibration (learn author's writing voice from past papers) + Writing Quality Check (writing quality checklist for natural prose). Supports IMRaD, literature review, theoretical, case study, policy brief, and conference paper structures. APA 7.0 (default), Chicago, MLA, IEEE, Vancouver citation formats. Bilingual abstracts (zh-TW + EN). Multi-format output (LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, Markdown). Triggers on: write paper, academic paper, paper outline, write abstract, revise paper, check citations, convert to LaTeX, guide my paper, parse reviews, revision roadmap, 寫論文, 學術論文, 論文大綱, 寫摘要, 修改論文, 檢查引用, 引導我寫論文, 帶我規劃論文, 逐章規劃, 論文架構, 審查意見, 修訂路線圖.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,6042026年10月12日 更新

Systematic writing framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers from optimized outline to submission-ready manuscript. Use when users want to: (1) write a paper from a detailed outline, (2) ensure quality control during writing, (3) maintain consistency across chapters, (4) prepare a submission-ready manuscript, or (5) systematically execute a planned paper. Triggered by phrases like 'write the paper from this outline,' 'compose the full manuscript,' 'execute the outline,' or when users have completed strategic planning (academic-paper-strategist skill) and are ready to write. Takes optimized outline as input; outputs complete manuscript with iterative quality checks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,6042026年10月12日 更新

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, and Socratic guided modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4,6042026年10月12日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する