audit

Audit

Standalone Codex host branch

Claude frontmatter, TLDR, agent teams, dynamic workflows, codex-verifier, and codex-run.ts do not apply in standalone Codex. Keep source inspection read-only. Map with rg --files, rg -n, direct import/caller searches, focused file reads, and the repo's own diagnostics; never claim TLDR ran. Use Context7 only when the user configured that MCP. Otherwise inspect pinned manifests and lockfiles, consult official package documentation through native browsing when available, and label currency or API claims unverified when neither source is reachable. This package does not auto-run unpinned registry MCP packages.

For fan-out, create each new reader with spawn_agent, continue a live reader with send_message, trigger another turn for an idle existing reader with followup_task, wait with wait_agent, and stop its current turn with interrupt_agent only when necessary. Only read-only reviewers may overlap. Writers share the working tree unless the live host explicitly offers isolation, so the main session writes the final report after readers finish; any implementer and test-writer phases must be serialized with non-overlapping ownership.

One skill, eight whole-repo audit modes. Seven of them share a skeleton: read the surface in full (never sample), hunt with explicit categories, and ship a prioritized, executable report or plan set. Six families of question:

• Codebase — one merged audit, two lenses on the same read. The structure lens (ported from Cursor's internal thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill, reported by Eric Zakariasson as Cursor's most-used internal skill; formerly this skill's standalone Maintainability mode) asks should this code exist? — 1k-line sprawl, thin wrappers, code-judo deletions, dependency freshness via context7. The behavior lens (adapted from the fable audit goal-spec trio, gist diegomarino/04970a2b8d9cc419de3ba05b9a03db5a; formerly the separate Codebase mode) asks does it do what it promises? — correctness, incoherences, affordance gaps. Merged August 2026: both modes fanned the same whole-repo readers over the same files and shipped near-identical reports, so they now run as one pass with two hunt lists. The July 2026 cc-settings audit ran the behavior lens and produced 28 findings, ~all confirmed and fixed.
• Docs and Process — from the same fable audit trio. Truth and structure of the docs (docs), walkable end-to-end journeys (process). The mechanics that made the July 2026 audit work (stable IDs, CONFIRMED/PLAUSIBLE, concrete failure scenarios, design tensions vs line findings, open questions for the maintainer) are the contract for these modes.
• Performance — asks where is time actually going, measured? Empirical-only: a finding does not exist until a number confirms it. Covers client runtime (via the same Lighthouse protocol /lighthouse uses), bundle and build, server and data, and code-level hot paths, adapting to what the repo actually is (web app vs CLI vs library).
• Threat-Model — adapted from openai/skills security-threat-model (Apache-2.0). Asks what can go wrong, and who would exploit it? — trust boundaries, attacker capability, abuse paths tied to attacker goals, mitigations mapped to components.
• Motion — adapted from emilkowalski/skills improve-animations (MIT). Asks where does animation work have the highest leverage? — purpose/frequency, easing/duration, physicality/origin, interruptibility, performance, accessibility, cohesion, and missed opportunities, turned into self-contained implementation plans rather than a findings report.
• SEO — distilled from shipped Darkroom work (satus PRs #348/#405/#413 and darkroomengineering/website PRs #40/#65, which converged independently on the same architecture). Asks will this site be found, ranked, and cited? — canonical integrity, sitemap reachability, per-content metadata, structured data, and the AEO surfaces (llms.txt, named AI crawlers, machine-view routes) that answer engines read.