Production Audit

Production Audit

Overview

A skill that runs an external audit on a shipped repo's deployed state — live URL, GitHub signals, secrets exposure, RLS gaps, webhook idempotency, indexes, observability, prompt injection, and ten other failure modes that AI-assisted projects routinely miss.

This is complementary to in-session security skills (security-review, OWASP-style, VibeSec, Trail of Bits). Those scan the editor buffer at write-time. This scans the deployed product after you commit. Different timing, different inputs, different findings. Run both for serious launches.

The skill wraps the commit.show audit engine via the public CLI (npx commitshow@0.3.23 audit . --json). Stable JSON envelope (schema_version: "1", additive-only). Writes a .commitshow/audit.{md,json} sidecar so future agent sessions can read prior state without re-running the engine.

When to Use This Skill

• Use when the user asks "is this production-ready", "what would break in prod", "score my project", "what did I miss", "audit my repo", "ready to ship".
• Use right after merging a feature branch to main (helpful as a pre-deploy gate).
• Use before a public launch / Show HN post / investor demo.
• Use when git log shows >20 commits since the last .commitshow/audit.md was written.

Skip when

• During active in-session coding — use security-review / OWASP-style for line-level patterns. This skill is for post-merge / pre-ship review.
• For library / scaffold-form repos — the engine handles app form best; libraries get a partial-substitute score.
• If .commitshow/audit.json already exists and is < 1 hour old, read that instead of re-running. Audit is rate-limited (anonymous: 20/IP/day · 5/repo/day · 2000/day global).
• Inside a private / non-GitHub repo — the audit pulls public GitHub signals, so private repos return a not_found error.

How It Works

Step 1: Run the audit

From the repo root. The CLI is pinned to an exact reviewed version so future npm releases are not selected silently. Because npx downloads and runs npm package code locally with the current user's permissions, run it only after the user explicitly approves this external execution and only in a repository where local files and environment variables are safe for that process to access. The sidecar directory is created up-front, and stderr is split off so install/deprecation warnings can't corrupt the JSON envelope:

mkdir -p .commitshow
npx commitshow@0.3.23 audit . --json \
  > .commitshow/audit.json \
  2> .commitshow/audit.stderr.log

This also writes a human-readable .commitshow/audit.md next to it. Subsequent invocations should diff against the prior audit.json if it exists, so you can lead with "+5 since yesterday's audit" instead of just an absolute number.

If the user pointed at a remote URL instead of ., swap . for the URL — keep the same mkdir -p + version pin + stderr split:

mkdir -p .commitshow
npx commitshow@0.3.23 audit github.com/owner/repo --json \
  > .commitshow/audit.json \
  2> .commitshow/audit.stderr.log

Step 2: Parse the envelope

The JSON envelope is stable (schema_version: "1", additive-only). Read these fields:

Concerns are sorted by decision-impact, not severity. Position 1 is the bullet to lead with.

Step 3: Surface to the user

Lead with score + trajectory in one sentence, then the top concerns. Do not dump the full JSON. Format:

Score: 82/100 (+5 since yesterday) · band: strong

Top concerns:
  ↓ [Security] No API rate limiting on /auth — IP cap missing
  ↓ [Infrastructure] webhook handler at api/stripe.ts — signature verified, but no
    idempotency-key check (replay attack window open)

Want me to fix the webhook idempotency gap first?

Rules:

• Use the exact bullet from concerns[].bullet — the audit engine already wrote action-oriented copy.
• Don't list strengths unless the user explicitly asks. They're not actionable in this context.
• Always end with a follow-up question that names a specific concern. Don't ask "what do you want to do?" — ask "fix X first?".
• If score.delta_since_last is negative or null, lead with the absolute score only.

Step 4: If the user picks a concern, scope a fix

For the chosen concern:

1. Read the file(s) cited in the bullet.
2. Confirm the gap matches the description (the engine occasionally over-flags when the issue is mitigated elsewhere).
3. Propose a minimal patch — single-file when possible.
4. Don't apply without explicit approval. Show the diff first. The user is deciding what to ship; you're a lens.

After applying a fix, suggest re-running with --refresh (same canonical form as Step 1, so audit.json stays the source of truth for delta calculations):

mkdir -p .commitshow
npx commitshow@0.3.23 audit . --json --refresh \
  > .commitshow/audit.json \
  2> .commitshow/audit.stderr.log

Examples

Example 1: User asks "is this production-ready?"

mkdir -p .commitshow
npx commitshow@0.3.23 audit . --json \
  > .commitshow/audit.json \
  2> .commitshow/audit.stderr.log

Then surface:

Score: 67/100 · band: mid

Top concerns:
  ↓ [Security] members table uses column-level GRANT but paid_audits_credit
    column lacks SELECT grant — silent 42501 on every read
  ↓ [Infrastructure] stripe.checkout.sessions.create called without
    idempotencyKey — duplicate-charge surface

Want me to fix the column GRANT first? Single SQL line.

Example 2: Cross-check a specific concern

User: "show me where the webhook idempotency gap is"

cat .commitshow/audit.json | jq '.concerns[] | select(.axis=="Infrastructure")'

Find the file path in the bullet, read it, confirm the gap matches.