Audit Code

HARD GATE — HARD GATE — Audit must check for: bugs (correctness), security, performance, and clarity. Do NOT skip security review if the code touches user data, auth, or external APIs.

Run this self-review before asking anyone else to look at the code. The goal is to catch everything that is clearly wrong or missing — so the reviewer can focus on design and architecture, not hygiene.

Distinct from request-review: This is the coding agent checking its own work. No second agent is involved. Run this first; run request-review after this passes.

Look-here-first (churn heuristic)

Before the checklist, rank changed files by git churn and review high-churn hotspots first — they carry the most latent risk regardless of diff size.

bash scripts/bp-churn-rank.sh --since 90.days --limit 15

Apply the full checklist to churn-ranked files in descending order. Files with zero recent commits but large diffs still get reviewed; churn only sets priority, not scope.

Modes

• Default: full checklist
• --quick: Run only Supply Chain and Test Coverage. Use for changes under 50 LOC.
• --gate: Non-interactive mode for automated CI gating (used by build-epic step 6). Exit with non-zero status code (exit 1) on ANY checklist failure; exit 0 only if ALL items pass. Produces a compact pass/fail summary to stderr. On failure, list every ✗ item with reason.
• --parallel: Run checklist sections in isolated git worktrees (e45s18) so concurrent checks cannot corrupt each other's working tree:

bash scripts/lib/parallel-review-worktrees.sh audit-code

Checklist

Supply Chain & Security

• slopcheck run for new dependencies; packages tagged in plan-work: [OK], [SUS], or [SLOP]
• No [SLOP] packages without documented human approval
• No secrets in diff (sk-, ghp_, AKIA, .env values) — see guard-git patterns
• OWASP Top 10 spot-check: injection, broken auth, sensitive data exposure, misconfiguration (see docs/references/security-threats.md)
• Security: diff scanned — no unaddressed HIGH findings (or deviations documented in specs/security/EXCEPTIONS.md)

Provenance & Metadata

• New plan artefacts include type: and context: metadata
• Implementation steps reference ADR or commit SHA where decisions were made

Law of Demeter

• No method chains through unrelated objects (e.g. a.getB().getC().doX())
• Collaborators talk to immediate neighbors only; law violations need explicit justification

CONVENTIONS.md Compliance

• All output files are in specs/ (no docs written to project root)
• No gh issue create calls anywhere in new/modified skills or scripts
• gh used only for PRs and repo clone operations
• No GitHub REST API called directly (no curl/fetch to api.github.com)

Scope

• Changes are limited to what was asked — nothing extra refactored or reorganized
• No speculative features added
• No files touched outside the stated scope
• Discovered defects: Reproducible gate failures (Preflight, CI, golden suite) require fix-or-log — quick-fix or fix-bug — even when "outside" the story scope. Scope-minimization does not waive Always Green.
• Boy Scout Rule applies to files opened to fix a gate failure; it does not excuse skipping red Preflight

Boy Scout Rule

• Every file I touched is cleaner than when I found it
• No dead code left behind
• No commented-out code blocks

Types and Safety

• No any types introduced (TypeScript) or untyped public functions (Python/Go/etc.)
• No @ts-ignore or // eslint-disable added
• No as unknown as X casts that bypass type safety

Test Coverage

• Every new function has at least one test
• Every bug fix has a regression test
• Tests verify behavior through public interfaces (not implementation details)
• Tests are F.I.R.S.T compliant (per CONVENTIONS.md §Tests; use enforce-first if unsure)

SOLID and Heuristics

• Single Responsibility: no function or module doing two unrelated things
• Open/Closed: extended through interfaces, not by modifying stable code
• Dependency Inversion: dependencies injected, not imported globally where avoidable
• Chapter 17 Heuristics: Code is free of smells documented in audit-code/HEURISTICS.md (G, N, C, T)

Refactoring Smells (Fowler)

Explicitly name any detected smells: Mysterious Name, Duplicated Code, Feature Envy, Data Clumps, Primitive Obsession, Message Chains, Middle Man.

Code Style (CONVENTIONS.md)

• Functions: 4–20 lines; split if longer
• Functions: descend exactly one level of abstraction (The Stepdown Rule / G34)
• Files: under 300 lines (ideally 200–300)
• Names: specific and unique (grep returns < 5 hits for each name)
• No duplication — shared logic extracted (DRY / G5)
• Early returns over nested ifs; max 2 levels of indentation
• Conditionals: expressed as positives (G29)
• Comments explain WHY, not WHAT

Red Flags

Before reporting, name any rationalization you caught yourself making for skipping a checklist item. Silence is not acceptable — if you skipped an item, state the reason explicitly.

Output

Report the checklist with ✓ / ✗ per item. For each ✗, describe what needs to be fixed.

If all items pass: suggest running request-review for an independent second opinion. If any items fail: fix them before proceeding.

In --gate mode, print one summary line per checklist section (PASS Supply Chain / FAIL Provenance (2 items)). Exit 0 only if all PASS. Write full report to specs/verifications/AUDIT-<epic>-<story>.md.

Verify

→ verify: test -f CONVENTIONS.md && test -d skills/enforce-first && test -d skills/request-review

Handoff

Gate: READY -> next: commit-message Writes: state.yaml handoff.next_skill = commit-message