Read-only audit with file:line findings

A strict no-write pass that reports one concrete finding per line, sorted by impact.

May 15, 2026 · 2 min read · 347 words
.md

A command for research, recon, and audit work where the agent must not touch a single file. It enforces a tight output contract so findings stay concrete, actionable, and ranked by impact.

commands/audit.md
---
description: For read-only research, recon, and audit tasks: do not modify any files. Report concrete, actionable findings with exact file paths and line
---
 
Read-only audit/recon. Do NOT modify any files.
 
Output contract:
 
- One finding per line: `path:line — observation — proposed fix`.
- Group by category/file; order by severity/impact H → M → L.
- Stay within a tight word budget (default ~350 words).
- End with a short top-N summary of the highest-impact items.
 
Include exact file paths and line numbers (or URLs). Be concrete; no speculation without evidence.

No writes, no exceptions#

The first line is the guardrail. An audit that quietly "fixes" things on the way mixes recon with change and makes the report untrustworthy.

A contract for the output#

Forcing one finding per line with a file:line and a proposed fix, sorted high-to-low impact, turns a wall of prose into a triage list. The word budget keeps it scannable; the top-N summary makes the highest-impact items impossible to miss.

When I use it#

This is the right command when the question is still "what is wrong?" rather than "please fix this." Architecture drift, repeated code smells, dead flags, stale docs, security-sensitive surfaces, and CI oddities all benefit from a clean read-only pass.

The useful output should feel like a queue of implementable issues. If a finding cannot point to a path, a line, an observable behavior, or a concrete fix, it probably belongs in notes, not in the audit result.

Was this useful?

React if it helped; comment if you have a concrete question, correction, or field note.

-

Discussion (0)

Practical notes, bug stories, and disagreement with receipts are welcome.

No comments yet. A useful first comment is usually a field note: what failed, what held, or what you would check before shipping this idea.
Start the discussion
Markdown is supported. Keep it concrete and useful.