/automation-audit-ops
Evidence-first automation inventory and overlap audit workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants to know which jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, or wrappers are live, broken, redundant, or missing before fixing anything.
$ npx -y skills add affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill automation-audit-ops --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/automation-audit-ops
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Evidence-first automation inventory and overlap audit workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants to know which jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, or wrappers are live, broken, redundant, or missing before fixing anything.
SKILL.md
automation-audit-ops.SKILL.mdname: automation-audit-ops
description: Evidence-first automation inventory and overlap audit workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants to know which jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, or wrappers are live, broken, redundant, or missing before fixing anything.
metadata:
origin: ECC
Automation Audit Ops
Use this when the user asks what automations are live, which jobs are broken, where overlap exists, or what tooling and connectors are actually doing useful work right now.
This is an audit-first operator skill. The job is to produce an evidence-backed inventory and a keep / merge / cut / fix-next recommendation set before rewriting anything.
Skill Stack
Pull these ECC-native skills into the workflow when relevant:
- `workspace-surface-audit` for connector, MCP, hook, and app inventory
- `knowledge-ops` when the audit needs to reconcile live repo truth with durable context
- `github-ops` when the answer depends on CI, scheduled workflows, issues, or PR automation
- `ecc-tools-cost-audit` when the real problem is webhook fanout, queued jobs, or billing burn in the sibling app repo
- `research-ops` when local inventory must be compared against current platform support or public docs
- `verification-loop` for proving post-fix state instead of relying on assumed recovery
When to Use
- user asks "what automations do I have", "what is live", "what is broken", or "what overlaps"
- the task spans cron jobs, GitHub Actions, local hooks, MCP servers, connectors, wrappers, or app integrations
- the user wants to know what was ported from another agent system and what still needs to be rebuilt inside ECC
- the workspace has accumulated multiple ways to do the same thing and the user wants one canonical lane
Guardrails
- start read-only unless the user explicitly asked for fixes
- separate:
- configured
- authenticated
- recently verified
- stale or broken
- missing entirely
- do not claim a tool is live just because a skill or config references it
- do not merge or delete overlapping surfaces until the evidence table exists
Workflow
1. Inventory the real surface
Read the current live surface before theorizing:
- repo hooks and local hook scripts
- GitHub Actions and scheduled workflows
- MCP configs and enabled servers
- connector- or app-backed integrations
- wrapper scripts and repo-specific automation entrypoints
Group them by surface:
- local runtime
- repo CI / automation
- connected external systems
- messaging / notifications
- billing / customer operations
- research / monitoring
2. Classify each item by live state
For every surfaced automation, mark:
- configured
- authenticated
- recently verified
- stale or broken
- missing
Then classify the problem type:
- active breakage
- auth outage
- stale status
- overlap or redundancy
- missing capability
3. Trace the proof path
Back every important claim with a concrete source:
- file path
- workflow run
- hook log
- config entry
- recent command output
- exact failure signature
If the current state is ambiguous, say so directly instead of pretending the audit is complete.
4. End with keep / merge / cut / fix-next
For each overlapping or suspect surface, return one call:
- keep
- merge
- cut
- fix next
The value is in collapsing noisy automation into one canonical ECC lane, not in preserving every historical path.
Output Format
CURRENT SURFACE
- automation
- source
- live state
- proof
FINDINGS
- active breakage
- overlap
- stale status
- missing capability
RECOMMENDATION
- keep
- merge
- cut
- fix next
NEXT ECC MOVE
- exact skill / hook / workflow / app lane to strengthen
Pitfalls
- do not answer from memory when the live inventory can be read
- do not treat "present in config" as "working"
- do not fix lower-value redundancy before naming the broken high-signal path
- do not widen the task into a repo rewrite if the user asked for inventory first
Verification
- important claims cite a live proof path
- each surfaced automation is labeled with a clear live-state category
- the final recommendation distinguishes keep / merge / cut / fix-next
Read more
name: automation-audit-ops description: Evidence-first automation inventory and overlap audit workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants to know which jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, or wrappers are live, broken, redundant, or missing before fixing anything. metadata: origin: ECC
Automation Audit Ops
Use this when the user asks what automations are live, which jobs are broken, where overlap exists, or what tooling and connectors are actually doing useful work right now.
This is an audit-first operator skill. The job is to produce an evidence-backed inventory and a keep / merge / cut / fix-next recommendation set before rewriting anything.
Skill Stack
Pull these ECC-native skills into the workflow when relevant:
- `workspace-surface-audit` for connector, MCP, hook, and app inventory
- `knowledge-ops` when the audit needs to reconcile live repo truth with durable context
- `github-ops` when the answer depends on CI, scheduled workflows, issues, or PR automation
- `ecc-tools-cost-audit` when the real problem is webhook fanout, queued jobs, or billing burn in the sibling app repo
- `research-ops` when local inventory must be compared against current platform support or public docs
- `verification-loop` for proving post-fix state instead of relying on assumed recovery
When to Use
- user asks "what automations do I have", "what is live", "what is broken", or "what overlaps"
- the task spans cron jobs, GitHub Actions, local hooks, MCP servers, connectors, wrappers, or app integrations
- the user wants to know what was ported from another agent system and what still needs to be rebuilt inside ECC
- the workspace has accumulated multiple ways to do the same thing and the user wants one canonical lane
Guardrails
- start read-only unless the user explicitly asked for fixes
- separate:
- configured
- authenticated
- recently verified
- stale or broken
- missing entirely
- do not claim a tool is live just because a skill or config references it
- do not merge or delete overlapping surfaces until the evidence table exists
Workflow
1. Inventory the real surface
Read the current live surface before theorizing:
- repo hooks and local hook scripts
- GitHub Actions and scheduled workflows
- MCP configs and enabled servers
- connector- or app-backed integrations
- wrapper scripts and repo-specific automation entrypoints
Group them by surface:
- local runtime
- repo CI / automation
- connected external systems
- messaging / notifications
- billing / customer operations
- research / monitoring
2. Classify each item by live state
For every surfaced automation, mark:
- configured
- authenticated
- recently verified
- stale or broken
- missing
Then classify the problem type:
- active breakage
- auth outage
- stale status
- overlap or redundancy
- missing capability
3. Trace the proof path
Back every important claim with a concrete source:
- file path
- workflow run
- hook log
- config entry
- recent command output
- exact failure signature
If the current state is ambiguous, say so directly instead of pretending the audit is complete.
4. End with keep / merge / cut / fix-next
For each overlapping or suspect surface, return one call:
- keep
- merge
- cut
- fix next
The value is in collapsing noisy automation into one canonical ECC lane, not in preserving every historical path.
Output Format
CURRENT SURFACE - automation - source - live state - proof FINDINGS - active breakage - overlap - stale status - missing capability RECOMMENDATION - keep - merge - cut - fix next NEXT ECC MOVE - exact skill / hook / workflow / app lane to strengthen
Pitfalls
- do not answer from memory when the live inventory can be read
- do not treat "present in config" as "working"
- do not fix lower-value redundancy before naming the broken high-signal path
- do not widen the task into a repo rewrite if the user asked for inventory first
Verification
- important claims cite a live proof path
- each surfaced automation is labeled with a clear live-state category
- the final recommendation distinguishes keep / merge / cut / fix-next
Your agent can write code, but ECC gives it a coordinated engineering system and toolbox: it plans before it builds, verifies changes with tests, reviews its own work from a fresh context, remembers what matters, and turns repeated wins into reusable skills
Repo: affaan-m/everything-claude-code
Other skills on ecc.
- /everything-claude-code
Development conventions and patterns for everything-claude-code. JavaScript project with conventional commits.
Open skill - /accessibility
Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA
Open skill - /agent-architecture-audit
Full-stack diagnostic for agent and LLM applications. Audits the 12-layer agent stack for wrapper regression, memory pollution, tool discipline failures, hidden repair loops, and rendering corruption. Produces severity-ranked findings with code-first fixes. Essential for
Open skill - /agent-eval
Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics
Open skill - /agent-harness-construction
Design and optimize AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, and observation formatting for higher completion rates.
Open skill - /agent-introspection-debugging
Structured self-debugging workflow for AI agent failures using capture, diagnosis, contained recovery, and introspection reports.
Open skill

