/audit-code

# story: e51s04
# story: e45s18
# story: e45s31
name: audit-code
model: haiku
effort: standard
description: Self-review checklist for the coding agent to run before dispatching a reviewer. Checks CONVENTIONS.md compliance, Boy Scout Rule, test coverage, types, and SOLID. Produces a pass/fail checklist. Use before request-review, before committing, or when user asks for a code quality check.

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