Audit - orchestrated project review

You are the coordinator. Spawn a team of sub-agents to review in parallel, then synthesize ONE report. Run from the repo root. $ARGUMENTS may scope the audit (e.g. "cowork only", "patches only"); default = full.

Use the AskUserQuestion tool (not limited to 4) whenever a finding needs the user's call. Read /architecture and /linux context first if unsure of the domain.

Pre-flight (you do this before fan-out)

1. Ensure a fresh unpatched upstream extract exists for patch comparison: if ./tmp/app.asar.contents/.vite/build/index.js is missing or older than today, run /fresh-upstream (or tell the user and run the manual .deb crack + asar flow). Patches must be judged against the true current upstream, not a stale extract.
2. Note .upstream-version vs the highest version in the official apt Packages index. Check ~/.config/Claude/logs/ exists for the log workstream.

Fan out - spawn these workstreams as parallel agents (Explore/general-purpose)

Give each agent the project path, the fresh-extract path, and ask for findings + file:line evidence + a recommended action, not file dumps.

1. Patches vs upstream. For each patches/*/*.nim: does its target still exist in the fresh ./tmp bundle? Run ./scripts/validate-patches.sh ./tmp/app.asar.contents and report pass/fail. For failures, classify: pattern renamed / code refactored / feature removed / feature upstreamed (→ needs regression guard). Flag patches that may be vestigial (target gone, no longer needed) and gaps (new darwin/win32 gates with no Linux patch - diff process.platform old vs new). Verify EXPECTED_PATCHES strictness + no false-success idempotency (AGENTS.md Rule 6).
2. Docs accuracy. Cross-check baseline/CLAUDE_FEATURE_FLAGS.md, CLAUDE_BUILT_IN_MCP.md, ION.md, PLATFORM_GATE_BASELINE.md, README.md patch table, and AGENTS.md against the actual current bundle + patches. Flag stale minified names, wrong counts, removed features still documented. (Read CHANGELOG.md head only: offset 1, limit 60.)
3. Linux compatibility. Walk the support matrix (X11, Wayland-wlroots, Wayland-GNOME, Wayland-KDE, XWayland) × (Arch/Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora/RHEL/NixOS/Jetson, x86_64+aarch64). Check input (js/cu_linux_executor.js, executor_linux.js) + screenshot cascades still cover each session, the glibc floor (2.34 overall; kwin-portal-bridge 2.39) holds, launcher session detection is sound. Surface edge cases (ydotoold version, Niri, immutable distros, sandboxed/portal identity).
4. Cowork backend (bundled native VM). Cowork runs on the .deb's bundled native VM backend (cowork-linux-helper + virtiofsd + smol-bin + QEMU/OVMF; requires /dev/kvm). The old claude-cowork-service Go daemon is deprecated and out of scope. Verify the Cowork-related patches/*/*.nim still match their targets in the fresh ./tmp bundle and that any regression guards still assert the upstreamed behavior. Flag drift against the current bundle.
5. Runtime logs (if present). Scan ~/.config/Claude/logs/{main,cowork_vm_node,mcp,claude.ai-web}.log for errors/exceptions, permission denials, dispatch bridge issues (DISPATCH-FWD/DISPATCH-TRANSFORM), and renderer crashes. cowork_vm_node.log is the bundled backend's Electron-side log (still valid). Defer deep dispatch/cowork debugging to /debug.

Synthesize (you, after agents return)

Produce a report:

• Summary table: workstream → status (clean / needs attention / broken) → headline finding.
• Patches: vestigial (removable), at-risk (pattern drift), gaps (new Linux opportunities), each with file:line + recommended action.
• Docs: what's stale + the exact fix.
• Linux matrix: any session/distro/arch combo at risk.
• Logs: notable errors + likely cause.
• Solution approaches: ranked, with effort estimate. Use AskUserQuestion for any decision (delete a patch? add one? change behavior per backend?). When findings amount to upstream drift (stale patterns, new gates, protocol mismatch), the remediation path is /update - point there for the structured fix workflow.

Cross-reference memory (~/.claude/projects/-home-patrickjaja-development-claude-desktop-extra/memory/) for prior decisions before recommending changes. This is read-only review - propose, don't apply (unless the user then asks).