AX Audit

SkillDocs & knowledge

Audits agentic applications against 27 rules for architecture and trust: tool parity, honest tool output, human-in-the-loop approval gates and what they show, access scope, unprompted action, escape hatches, and memory visibility, in AI SDK, MCP, and Claude Agent SDK code. Produces a ship-readiness

Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.

Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.

Then ask your AI: use the AX Audit skill

What this skill tells your AI

The instructions your AI receives, as published by mblode/agent-skills in skills/ax-audit/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.

Feature-level reviewer for apps where an agent acts for the user. One question: does it earn trust, and where does it break?

  • IS: rules-based audit of agentic surfaces (chat, tool execution, config, dashboards) across architecture (rules-arch/) and trust (rules-ax/), ending in a ship-readiness verdict plus an AX Relationship Summary.
  • IS NOT: traditional frontend UX (use ui-design Audit mode); developer-facing API, CLI, or type ergonomics (use dx-audit); agent instruction files (use agents-md); what the product should do before it exists (use product-design).

No agentic features in scope? Stop. AX rules against forms and lists are noise.

Contents

  • Audit workflow
  • Two rule layers
  • Tiers and verdict
  • AX Relationship Summary
  • Reference files
  • Gotchas
  • Audit self-check
  • Related skills

Audit workflow

AX Audit progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Scope, via the diff against the PR base merge-base (PR mode) or explicit path (full sweep)
- [ ] Step 2: Detect agentic features per references/feature-playbooks.md
- [ ] Step 3: Run each detected feature's playbook in order, plus the diff-wide checks (PR mode only)
- [ ] Step 4: For each check, load the rule file and follow its detection recipe
- [ ] Step 5: Tier each finding per references/ship-readiness.md (rule override table wins)
- [ ] Step 6: Render verdict + findings + AX Relationship Summary per references/output-format.md
- [ ] Step 7: Run the audit self-check and report its evidence counts

PR-mode scope is the diff plus the tool definitions and orchestrator it touches. Findings in untouched files belong in a full sweep, not this verdict. Playbook annotations are a scan copy; the rule file is authoritative. parity-orphan-ui-action runs on every PR-mode audit and never in a full sweep, where there is no diff for it to read.

Rule greps name the most common identifiers, not every framework's spelling. When a grep misses in code that plainly does the thing (a gate, a stream, a tool result), check references/framework-signals.md for the stack's name for it before recording unknown.

Two rule layers

LayerFolderRulesLoad when a playbook names
1: Architecturerules-arch/12rules-arch/<category>-<slug>.md
2: Experiencerules-ax/15rules-ax/<category>-<slug>.md

Categories: arch = parity, granularity, context, comm; ax = trust, control, context, comm. Shared prefixes are different rules: rules-arch/comm-no-approval-gate.md (no gate on the execution path) is not rules-ax/control-no-approval-gate.md (gate exists, stakes are wrong).

Run Layer 1 comm/parity and Layer 2 control/trust first. They hold the blockers. Category map: rules-arch/_sections.md, rules-ax/_sections.md.

PriorityLayerCategoryPrefixRules
1archCommunicationcomm-3
2archParityparity-4
3axControlcontrol-4
4axTrusttrust-4
5archContextcontext-3
6axCommunicationcomm-4
7axContextcontext-3
8archGranularitygranularity-2

Tiers and verdict

Three tiers. Full trigger lists and the generic surface bump live in references/ship-readiness.md.

Precedence: the rule's own surface-override table > the generic bump > defaultTier. Apply at most one adjustment.

Verdict: ✅ READY (0 blockers, ≤3 sprint) · ⚠️ READY WITH FOLLOW-UP (0 blockers, ≥4 sprint) · ❌ NOT READY (≥1 blocker) · 🚫 INCOMPLETE (self-check failed).

Blockers outrank an incomplete audit. With ≥1 release-blocker and a failed self-check, report ❌ NOT READY and note the self-check failure beneath it: the blockers are established findings and stay actionable, while 🚫 reads as "nothing was learned" and sends the reader away. Reserve 🚫 for an audit with no blockers whose coverage you cannot vouch for.

AX Relationship Summary

Render after findings when any agentic feature was detected. Findings serve engineers; this serves designers and PMs. Four fields: evolution stage (behavior, not a label), trust signal (high/moderate/low plus one-line reason), key gap (one actionable sentence), trust question (one question only research can answer).

Reference files

FileRead when
references/feature-playbooks.mdSteps 2-3: detection heuristics, per-feature ordered checks, diff-wide checks
references/framework-signals.mdStep 4, when the code uses AI SDK, MCP, the Claude Agent SDK, or AG-UI: where the gate, the stream, the completion signal, and the structured result live in each, with the spec defaults the rules lean on
references/ship-readiness.mdStep 5: tier triggers, precedence, verdict logic
references/output-format.mdStep 6: findings JSON schema, summary schema, terminal rendering
references/agent-native-principles.mdA Layer 1 finding needs grounding the rule file does not carry
references/ax-evolution-curve.mdWriting the AX Relationship Summary: stage, action depth, costume vs intelligence
references/invisible-interface.mdGrounding for structured tool output, approval payload, access scope, unprompted action; also the arguments that stay in keyGap
references/evaluation-scenarios.mdWhen changing this skill. Never loads during a user audit
rules-arch/_sections.mdLayer 1 categories, default tiers, co-firing pairs
rules-ax/_sections.mdLayer 2 categories, default tiers, co-firing pairs

Gotchas

  • Scope before rules. Running all 27 rules repo-wide on a 3-file PR buries a new release-blocker under pre-existing backlog noise; the verdict stops meaning "can this PR merge."
  • The rule's override table is authoritative. comm-no-intent-handshake defaults to fix-this-sprint but its table says release-blocker on tool execution. Stacking the generic "+1 tier on tool execution" bump on an explicit override double-upgrades backlog findings into blockers.
  • A stop button not wired to AbortController.abort() is a false affordance. control-no-escape-hatch still fails: verify the abort() call, not the button label, or the audit passes a UI that lies to users.
  • A client stop() that only closes the stream leaves the executor running. useChat().stop() aborts the fetch. Unless the route passes req.signal into streamText({ abortSignal }) and tool execute reads it, the server finishes every remaining tool call after the user pressed Stop. Trace the signal to the loop, not to the button.
  • Tool annotations are hints, not stakes. MCP tells clients to treat annotations from untrusted servers as untrusted; a gate that auto-approves on a third-party server's readOnlyHint: true has handed the gate to that server. comm-no-approval-gate fails it. The spec defaults (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false) are the fail-closed baseline.
  • A framework approval flag is the gate's input, not the gate. AI SDK toolApproval: "user-approval" emits a tool-approval-request part and waits. A UI that never renders state === "approval-requested", or answers it with addToolApprovalResponse({ approved: true }) on arrival, has a gate in the type system and none for the user. Check the renderer and the response call, not the option.
  • Absence checks need a recorded file list. "Find components lacking X" greps return nothing both when everything passes and when nothing was scanned. List candidate files first (rg -l <feature-pattern>), check each for the counter-pattern, and cite the file list as evidence.
  • detection: observational rules cannot fail on grep evidence alone. granularity-static-api-mapping, trust-no-uncertainty-markers, control-over-conversational, and comm-no-generative-momentum need interaction-flow judgment; on static evidence alone, return unknown with a reason, not fail.
  • Gates fail in three separate places. Absent from the path (comm-no-approval-gate), present but mismatched to the stakes (control-no-approval-gate), or correct and unreadable (control-thin-approval-payload). Report the first that holds and fix in that order.
  • Interactive gates do not cover unattended runs. Cron, webhook, and queue entry points reach the same executor with nobody to prompt. comm-unrequested-action-no-consent audits that path; evidence names the entry point, not the executor.
  • ax-audit-ignore:<slug> comments count as suppressed, not pass. Report the count in the verdict block; a suppression with no reason is itself a warn.
  • Don't inflate tiers. comm-no-generative-momentum and granularity-static-api-mapping default to backlog. One finding promoted to release-blocker flips the whole PR to ❌ NOT READY, so promoting cosmetic ones trains the team to ignore the verdict entirely.
  • Don't duplicate ui-design Audit mode findings. "Missing loading state" and "form clears on error" are its territory; duplicating them trains engineers to dismiss the whole AX report.
  • A Personally Intelligent agent that only ever suggests has plateaued. Memory stage is not trust. Name the highest action rung in evolutionStage.behavior or the summary flatters a polite chatbot.

Audit self-check

Flag the audit INCOMPLETE if any of these hold, and include the counts as evidence (planned vs. run rules per playbook, unknown rate, suppressed count):

  • Fewer rules ran than the playbooks planned
  • More than 30% of rules returned unknown. Count only unknown here, never out-of-scope: a rule whose layer is absent from the scope you were given was answered correctly, and a narrow diff is the scope Step 1 asks for. Marking a correctly scoped audit INCOMPLETE buries its real blockers under a verdict that reads as "we learned nothing".
  • Any fail/warn finding lacks file:line evidence or a fix snippet
  • Every finding landed in the same tier (suspect blanket assignment)
  • AX Relationship Summary is missing despite detected agentic features

Related skills

  • ui-design Audit mode: traditional frontend UX around agentic surfaces; run both on agentic feature PRs
  • dx-audit: same files, different reader. This skill asks whether an agent can operate and recover; dx-audit asks whether a human adopting the API, CLI, or types finds it ergonomic
  • product-design: what the agentic feature should do, before this audit
  • agents-md: CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md instruction files

Maintenance only: evals/evals.json contains regression scenarios for changes to this skill; it does not load during a user task.

Signals

GitHub stars
111
Forks
11
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Catalog kind
skill
Gateway key
ax-audit
Source
github.com/mblode/agent-skills