Agent skill

Ln 54 Codebase Auditor

by levnikolaevich in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

Audits cross-cutting codebase health, security and maintainability; not a single-change review or specialist audit.

MITAuto-check passedDevelopment

Install Ln 54 Codebase Auditor

skills CLI
$ npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-54-codebase-auditor -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills ln-54-codebase-auditor --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor .claude/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
ln-54-codebase-auditor
GitHub stars
570
Token cost
~3.9k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,883 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
31
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Audits cross-cutting codebase health, security and maintainability; not a single-change review or specialist audit.

  • Works in 5 steps: Establish Scope and Baseline → Audit Security and Delivery Boundaries → Audit Maintainability and Dependencies → …
  • Development work in your project
  • SKILL.md covers Tool Routing, Evidence Rules, Checklist and Self-Check, plus 1 more section
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Ln 54 Codebase Auditor is an agent skill from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. Audits cross-cutting codebase health, security and maintainability; not a single-change review or specialist audit.

Its SKILL.md is about 3.9k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Development. The repository describes itself as: Help your AI agent finish the job: solve the right problem, keep changes focused, and show what was verified. For Claude Code and Codex. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Development work in your project

Example prompts

  • “Use the ln-54-codebase-auditor skill to audit cross-cutting codebase health, security and maintainability; not a single-change review or specialist…”
  • “/ln-54-codebase-auditor”

Workflow steps

5 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Establish Scope and Baseline
  2. Audit Security and Delivery Boundaries
  3. Audit Maintainability and Dependencies
  4. Audit Diagnosability, Concurrency, and Lifecycle
  5. Validate Findings and Report

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 0ce8796. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Ln 54 Codebase Auditor loads about 3.9k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 35 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,883 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~35
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.9k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills at commit 0ce8796, republished under its MIT licence (© levnikolaevich). 1,883 words, ~3,856 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
ln-54-codebase-auditor
description
Audits cross-cutting codebase health, security and maintainability; not a single-change review or specialist audit.

Codebase Auditor

Goal: Perform a broad, read-only production-code health audit. Find concrete cross-cutting failure, security, delivery, and maintenance risks without turning detector matches or personal style preferences into findings. Do not substitute for documentation trust, test-portfolio, whole-architecture, or persistence-specific review.

Execution contract: The checklist defines completion. Track each item internally as PENDING, PROVEN with evidence, CLEARED with evidence its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap; reading, delegation, tool failure, a zero exit status, or a self-reported success is not proof; only the observed outcome is. Reconcile after each section. Before returning, resolve all PENDING, count only PROVEN and CLEARED, and apply verdict and approval rules to every gap. Preserve intent, scope, and existing authorization. Continue authorized work; ask only for consequential unresolved choices or required external approval. When no one can answer during the run, state the exact question and apply the skill's verdict for the remaining gap instead of waiting or guessing. Scale depth to material risk without skipping checks. Preserve dependency and safety order; otherwise choose an appropriate verification method. Accept equivalent user or repository evidence; no other skill, named artifact, or complete lifecycle is required. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant source versions, dirty changes, configuration, and environment; invalidate only affected claims. On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, current state, and unresolved evidence. For long work, return a compact continuation record or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority. Prepare authorized work before required approval. If blocked by an instruction, cite its exact source and unresolved boundary; do not invent approval gates from caution.

Tool Routing

NeedPreferred toolUse it whenFallback
Repository map and stack detectionNative file listing, manifests, build files, and repository instructionsEstablishing scope, generated areas, entrypoints, supported runtimes, and commandsTargeted tree inspection and known entrypoints
Symbols, callers, ownership, and data flowLanguage server or host-native code intelligenceA finding depends on symbol identity, references, overrides, route wiring, or cross-file behaviorNarrow text search plus direct inspection of every relevant match
Current changes and historical contextGit status, diff, log, and blameSeparating current work, regressions, intentional constraints, and dead compatibility pathsCurrent implementation and explicit decision records
Delivery healthRepository-defined build, lint, type, test, and smoke commandsEstablishing whether the project can ship in its documented environmentInspect CI and scripts; mark execution unavailable
Dependency and security stateNative package-manager audit, manifests, lockfiles, and official advisoriesChecking known vulnerabilities, unsupported versions, and dependency healthOfficial registry and vendor sources; never guess severity
Runtime evidenceExisting logs, metrics, traces, profiles, and diagnosticsStatic analysis cannot establish frequency, reachability, or operational impactCall-path analysis with an explicit static-only limitation
Current external behaviorOfficial specifications, vendor documentation, and release notesA finding depends on current API, runtime, or standard behaviorPrimary-source web research; otherwise mark UNVERIFIED

Start with summary-level discovery and narrow before reading deeply. Run only repository-defined or clearly safe diagnostic commands; never publish, deploy, migrate production data, rotate secrets, or rewrite files during the audit.

Evidence Rules

  • A pattern match is a candidate, not a finding. Confirm reachability, context, and consequence.
  • Runtime failure or deterministic command output outweighs static suspicion; static evidence remains valid when execution is unavailable and the limitation is explicit.
  • Generated, vendored, fixture, migration-history, and intentionally compatible code require context-specific treatment.
  • External best practice is actionable only when it addresses a concrete repository defect or risk.
  • Score or count only findings with distinct root causes; deduplicate symptoms that share one correction.

Checklist

1. Establish Scope and Baseline
  • Detect languages, frameworks, package managers, entrypoints, deployment model, generated areas, and the repository's supported verification commands.
  • Classify each runtime surface as long-running service, CLI, library, job, serverless function, or platform-managed component before requiring probes, telemetry, signal handling, or shutdown behavior.
  • Read applicable instructions and identify security boundaries, critical business paths, public interfaces, and irreversible operations.
  • Inspect Git state so the audit does not overwrite, misattribute, or ignore unrelated user changes.
  • Establish feasible build, lint, type, test, and smoke baselines; record executed scope, environment, exit status, and evidence. Verify required work ran rather than succeeding with no selected tests or skipped gates.
  • Define exclusions and depth based on risk rather than scanning every file with equal effort.
  • Keep the audit read-only. Allow only permitted caches and build artifacts and disclose them when created.
2. Audit Security and Delivery Boundaries
  • Search for committed secrets, unsafe credential patterns, sensitive defaults, debug bypasses, and accidental exposure through logs or errors.
  • For credential findings, never expose the raw value: distinguish live material from placeholders, fixtures, examples, and allowlisted fingerprints; report only the type, location, and redacted evidence, and recommend revocation, rotation, or history remediation only for confirmed exposure without performing it during the audit.
  • Trace untrusted input into SQL, shell, templates, HTML, file paths, URLs, deserialization, redirects, and other injection-sensitive sinks.
  • Check authentication, authorization, tenant or ownership isolation, privilege transitions, insecure direct object access, and default-deny behavior.
  • Check validation at trust boundaries, canonicalization, size and rate limits, unsafe file operations, and destructive-action confirmation or guards.
  • Verify security findings against actual call paths, framework behavior, configuration, and current official guidance before assigning severity.
  • Inspect compiler, linter, type checker, tests, packaging, and CI configuration for skipped gates, ignored failures, environment drift, and non-reproducible delivery.
  • Verify that successful packaging produces the intended entrypoints, assets, metadata, target platform, and deployable artifact; exit code zero alone does not prove a shippable build.
  • Find stale skip, quarantine, allow-failure, continue-on-error, and warning-suppression paths that make required signals appear green.
  • Check configuration completeness, required environment validation, unsafe fallbacks, missing examples, and differences between local, CI, and deployment settings.
3. Audit Maintainability and Dependencies
  • Find evidence-backed duplication across functions, handlers, modules, configuration, and integration code; distinguish shared domain concepts from coincidental similarity.
  • Identify over-abstraction, unused extension points, excessive factories or wrappers, parallel mechanisms, and custom utilities that duplicate declared platform capabilities.
  • Before merging duplication or removing an abstraction, check lifecycle and ownership boundaries, intentional decoupling, dependency injection or test seams, framework requirements, public extension contracts, and expected independent evolution.
  • Inspect complexity hotspots, long methods, god modules, deep nesting, excessive parameters, boolean-mode APIs, misleading names, and mixed responsibilities.
  • Check algorithms for early-exit mistakes, duplicate-key loss, boundary errors, unbounded work, repeated scans, mutation during iteration, and hidden shared state.
  • Check hardcoded operational values, URLs, timeouts, limits, identifiers, and environment-specific behavior that should be explicit configuration or named policy.
  • Trace one concept across external contracts, DTOs, services, persistence, and storage; flag synonym or casing drift only when no explicit serializer, code-generation, or ORM boundary mapping explains it.
  • Audit dependency vulnerabilities, support status, license or runtime constraints, duplicate packages, unused packages, and credible replacement or removal opportunities.
  • Match advisories to the resolved version and deployment, then classify exposure as confirmed, unknown, or not applicable using reachability and exploit conditions; an unavailable call path cannot clear an affected component.
  • Recommend native, existing-dependency, or external replacements only after checking required feature parity, migration surface, maintenance, license, security history, and domain-specific behavior.
  • Find unreachable code, unused imports and exports, commented-out implementations, obsolete flags, dead compatibility shims, and replacement code left beside its successor.
  • Confirm dead-code findings against reflection, registration, framework discovery, configuration, serialization, templates, and external entrypoints before reporting deletion as safe.
Show full SKILL.md (675 more words)Show less
4. Audit Diagnosability, Concurrency, and Lifecycle
  • Check whether logs are structured, correctly leveled, actionable, correlated across a request or job, and free of secrets and excessive payload data.
  • Verify that correlation context crosses outbound calls, queues, retries, scheduled work, and detached async boundaries instead of existing only in the first request log.
  • Check metrics, traces, health signals, and error context for critical paths; require observability only where operators need it to detect or diagnose failure.
  • Trace shared mutable state, lock ordering, atomicity, async task ownership, cancellation, retries, and race windows on reachable concurrent paths.
  • Inspect read-modify-write across await or yield points and build a resource/accessor timeline for shared files, subprocesses, terminal or OS resources, and repeated user triggers; include accessors outside the current process.
  • Check blocking I/O or synchronous waits in async paths, unbounded concurrency, orphan tasks, deadlocks, TOCTOU hazards, and thread-unsafe resources.
  • Inspect startup ordering, dependency readiness, configuration validation, fail-fast behavior, signal handling, graceful shutdown, and in-flight work draining.
  • Inventory resources acquired during startup and runtime, then match each to idempotent cleanup in safe reverse dependency order on success, failure, timeout, cancellation, and repeated shutdown signals.
  • Verify host-specific probe semantics: liveness failure should justify restart, readiness governs traffic eligibility, and startup checks protect initialization. Avoid dependency-triggered restart cascades and probes that create material load or side effects.
5. Validate Findings and Report
  • Research external APIs, standards, vulnerabilities, and runtime behavior only when they can change a finding, using official sources matching the relevant version.
  • Filter framework conventions, generated code, bounded administrative paths, tests, examples, and documented tradeoffs before confirming a candidate.
  • Reproduce high-severity issues with a safe command, test, minimal call trace, or complete static failure path whenever possible.
  • Apply the materiality gate: require concrete failure, security, delivery, operability, or recurring maintenance impact at evidenced scale. Reject taste, theoretical purity, generic practice, hypothetical scale, and reasonable alternatives; require the outcome or constraint, not a preferred implementation.
  • External correction evidence: Ground external corrections in version-matched official contracts, using primary engineering sources for unresolved tradeoffs. Cite the supported mechanism; local evidence suffices for local defects.
  • For each accepted finding, identify the bounded owning capability and observable correction evidence so remediation can proceed without repeating the audit or authorizing unrelated cleanup.
  • Classify findings as P0-P3 based on exploitability, data or availability impact, delivery blockage, recurrence, and remediation urgency.
  • Order remediation by risk reduction and dependency, not by file order or detector category.
  • Use BLOCKED when a required safety environment, high-risk behavior, or authoritative contract cannot be verified without a credible fallback; use FAIL for an evidenced unresolved P0/P1, required failing delivery gate, or demonstrated unsafe behavior; use CONCERNS only for verified non-blocking risks, and PASS only when required checks complete with no material finding.

Self-Check

  • Reconcile before returning. Check item-level evidence, requirement coverage, contradictions, scope, verdict, and applicable cleanup. Correct the report or authorized artifacts. Reuse valid evidence; do not automatically rescan the repository or rerun successful commands. Repeat checks only for relevant changes, failures, or unresolved evidence. Disclose remaining gaps.

Output Contract

Report in the user's language, in this order; label all five fields and state each fact once. Use controlled plain language: one fact per sentence, usually under 20 words, active voice, and one term per concept, with no synonyms for verdicts, IDs, or states. Small results may use one line per field; omit empty tables and do not copy linked artifacts:

  1. Result: The exact skill-specific verdict token first, then the supported outcome.
  2. Scope: Reviewed/changed scope, exclusions, baseline, and material assumptions.
  3. Evidence: Skill-specific fields below; distinguish facts, inferences, and unverified claims. Link artifacts; use tables when useful.
  4. Verification: Checks/results, unavailable evidence, and applicable cleanup/external state.
  5. Completion: Checklist: X/Y complete; Incomplete: None or each UNPROVEN item's reason, outcome impact, and exact next action; residual risks and required decisions.

Skill-specific evidence: Security, delivery, maintainability/dependencies, diagnosability, concurrency, and lifecycle evidence. Findings need priority, location, trigger or failure path, confidence, material impact, unacceptable tradeoff, and minimal remediation with expected effort; allow equivalent valid solutions. Order remediation by prerequisites and risk reduction, not detector count.

© levnikolaevich, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor of levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 0ce8796

Compare with similar skills

Ln 54 Codebase Auditor next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Ln 54 Codebase Auditor compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Ln 54 Codebase Auditor this skilllevnikolaevich/claude-code-skills570—~3.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Vercel Composition Patternssupabase/supabase111k59 repos~726Automated safety check: PassMIT
Finishing a Development Branchobra/superpowers296k5 repos~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Typescript Advanced Typesrolling-scopes/rsschool-app10k25 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassMPL-2.0
PR Babysitteropeninterpreter/openinterpreter69k3 repos~4.2kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Code Review ChecklistshareAI-lab/learn-claude-code78k5 repos~1.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Official

    React composition patterns that scale. An agent skill from supabase/supabase.

    111k GitHub starsUsed in 59 repos~726 tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Walks the last step of a branch: confirm tests pass, detect the git environment, ask how to integrate, carry out your choice and clean up the worktree.

    296k GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.9k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Typescript Advanced Types

    rolling-scopes/rsschool-app

    Master TypeScript's advanced type system including generics, conditional types, mapped types, template literals, and utility types for building type-safe applications.

    10k GitHub starsUsed in 25 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • PR Babysitter

    openinterpreter/openinterpreter

    Watches an open GitHub pull request until it merges, handling review comments, diagnosing CI failures and retrying flaky checks along the way.

    69k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~4.2k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Code Review Checklist

    shareAI-lab/learn-claude-code

    Reviews code against a five-part checklist covering security, correctness, performance, maintainability and testing, and reports findings in a fixed format.

    78k GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~1.1k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed
  • Greploop

    onyx-dot-app/onyx

    Iteratively improves a PR (GitHub), MR (GitLab), or shelved changelist (Perforce) until Greptile gives it a 5/5 confidence score with zero unresolved comments.

    32k GitHub starsUsed in 4 repos~3.3k tokens
    DevelopmentAuto-check passed

More from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

All 31 skills in this repo
  • Ln 53 Documentation Auditor

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Audits documentation and comments for trust, coverage, consistency and freshness; read-only.

    570 GitHub stars~3.8k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 81 Skill Reviewer

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Reviews skill instructions, trigger boundaries and distribution contracts; not product code.

    570 GitHub stars~3.5k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 11 Opportunity Evaluator

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Evaluates new product opportunities through demand, channels and economics before committing to build.

    570 GitHub stars~3k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 12 Product Requirements Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Defines product requirements, business rules and acceptance criteria for a committed intent; edits product docs only.

    570 GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 13 Interaction Design Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Designs user flows, interaction states and mockups for a defined product scope; does not implement UI code.

    570 GitHub stars~1.8k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ln 21 System Design Baseline Builder

    levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

    Defines measurable architecture drivers and constraints before system design; edits architecture docs only.

    570 GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Ln 54 Codebase Auditor

What does Ln 54 Codebase Auditor do?

Audits cross-cutting codebase health, security and maintainability; not a single-change review or specialist audit. Ln 54 Codebase Auditor is an agent skill from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. Audits cross-cutting codebase health, security and maintainability; not a single-change review or specialist audit.

When should I use Ln 54 Codebase Auditor?

Ln 54 Codebase Auditor fits situations like: development work in your project.

How do I install Ln 54 Codebase Auditor in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-54-codebase-auditor -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills) into .claude/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Ln 54 Codebase Auditor in Codex?

Run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-54-codebase-auditor -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (plugins/quality-assurance-suite/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills) into .agents/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Ln 54 Codebase Auditor in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-54-codebase-auditor -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor, .gemini/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor, .github/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor and .opencode/skills/ln-54-codebase-auditor in your project.

What does Ln 54 Codebase Auditor need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Ln 54 Codebase Auditor is instructions for the agent only.

Does Ln 54 Codebase Auditor access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Ln 54 Codebase Auditor safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Ln 54 Codebase Auditor use?

Ln 54 Codebase Auditor is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Ln 54 Codebase Auditor use?

About 3.9k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 15k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Ln 54 Codebase Auditor?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Ln 54 Codebase Auditor: Vercel Composition Patterns (supabase/supabase, 111k stars), Finishing a Development Branch (obra/superpowers, 296k stars), Typescript Advanced Types (rolling-scopes/rsschool-app, 10k stars) and PR Babysitter (openinterpreter/openinterpreter, 69k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Ln 54 Codebase Auditor?

levnikolaevich (a GitHub user) maintains it in levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills, which has 570 GitHub stars. The repository holds 31 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 5, 2026.

Source: levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.