audit-harness-fit · diff
git:20260913.e4eeb16 to git:20260920.de1eca2
61 added, 46 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: audit-harness-fit
description: >-
- Audit or clean up agent instructions and skills: remove needless questions
- and rechecks, reconcile changed decisions, retire low-value guidance, move
- history to references, and right-size user-journey verification. Also fill
- or refresh AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md project context from repository evidence.
- Use for harness cleanup, rule conflicts, or context scaffolding, not
- ordinary feature implementation.
+ Improve agent instructions and skills for autonomous, productive delivery
+ with verifiable quality. Resolve needless questions, repeated checks,
+ conflicting decisions, missing actionable context, and low-value procedures;
+ adapt guidance to demonstrated model and tool capabilities. Also fill or
+ refresh AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md project context from repository evidence.
+ Use for harness review, cleanup, rule conflicts, or context scaffolding,
+ not ordinary feature implementation.
---
# Audit Harness Fit
- Keep agent guidance aligned with confirmed intent, the actual repository,
- and useful current capabilities. Optimize delivery without weakening safeguards.
+ Help agents deliver accepted user outcomes with proportionate time, cost, and
+ human effort. Make success criteria, constraints, evidence, and useful resources
+ clear; leave valid implementation, investigation, verification, and delegation
+ choices to the agent.
+ Judge guidance by its contribution to delivery and quality. Useful improvements
+ may remove friction, supply missing context, or enable a better execution path.
+ Prompt length, check counts, and conformity to a preferred method are secondary.
+ General procedures are adaptable defaults; an exact method or sequence remains
+ binding when required by an applicable contract or project policy. As models
+ and tools improve, methods and compensating procedures may change; acceptance
+ criteria and authority boundaries are not lowered on that basis.
+
## Route the request
| Requested work | Read | Behavior |
|---|---|---|
- | Audit, reconcile, or propose cleanup | [Audit](references/audit.md) | Read-only findings and proposed edits |
- | A full audit, or testing / usage-scene / model-routing advice | [Verification](references/verification.md), plus Audit for findings | Propose scenario-based implementation and proportionate verification |
- | Apply, remove, merge, or relocate | [Apply](references/apply.md); Audit only for unresolved findings | Make only authorized local changes |
- | Fill or refresh project context | [Populate](references/populate.md) | Edit only the authorized project-context sections |
+ | Audit, reconcile, or propose improvements | [Audit](references/audit.md) | Read-only findings and proposed edits |
+ | A full audit, or testing / usage-scene / execution-route (delegation) advice | [Verification](references/verification.md), plus Audit for findings | Propose outcome-based implementation, sufficient verification, and a suitable route |
+ | Apply, remove, merge, relocate, or conduct an authorized trial | [Apply](references/apply.md); Audit only for unresolved findings | Make bounded local changes; distinguish trials from adoption |
+ | Fill or refresh project context | [Populate](references/populate.md) | Edit only authorized project-context sections |
- Read only the resources needed. Reuse relevant findings and valid approvals;
- do not restart a full audit before applying a reviewed change. An explicit
- no-edit request means no file writes, including reports. When writing authority
- is unclear, provide a proposal. Do not invoke this skill for every development
- task merely because it is installed. README and evals are maintainer resources,
- not required inputs to an ordinary run.
+ Load the resources needed for the requested scope. Reuse relevant findings,
+ answers, and valid approvals. An audit or preview stays read-only; an explicit
+ no-edit request includes report files. Where editing authority is unresolved,
+ provide a proposal and continue independent authorized work. README and evals
+ are maintainer resources, outside the normal execution path. Ordinary development
+ requests stay on their existing workflow.
## Audit contract
A full audit covers these concerns; a narrower request keeps its stated scope:
- 1. Unconditional instructions causing needless questions or repeated checks.
- 2. Conflicts, changed decisions, and stale interpretations of the user's intent.
- 3. Excessive principles or skills with no useful incremental value.
- 4. Long rationale and history occupying active instructions or menus.
- 5. User-journey-based implementation, proportionate testing, and useful delegation —
- including instructions that slow development: per-edit full runs, per-change reviews,
- or checks that could be bundled once per completed user scene.
+ 1. Questions, research, and rechecks: useful triggers, evidence reuse, and stop conditions.
+ 2. Conflicts and changed decisions: confirmed intent, actual implementation, and authority.
+ 3. Instruction value and autonomy: useful project context, proportionate procedures,
+ missing enablers, and fit to demonstrated model and tool capabilities.
+ 4. Context efficiency: current actionable guidance, with long rationale and history on demand.
+ 5. User outcomes and quality: implementation slices, sufficient evidence, flexible
+ verification timing, suitable execution routes, and required review independence.
- There is no fixed finding limit or quota. Keep all material, supported findings
- within inspected scope, group shared root causes, and order by consequence.
- Show originals, the affected situation, and concrete replacement text or a diff.
- Report uncertainty and coverage gaps instead of inventing findings or completeness.
+ Retain all material supported findings, group common causes, and order by consequence.
+ Use originals, task situations, and concrete replacement wording or diffs. Match
+ report detail to impact and uncertainty; distinguish observed facts, inferred
+ benefits, and uninspected scope. A finding count is neither a target nor a limit.
## Boundaries
- Follow applicable instruction priority and project policy. Preserve required
- tests, independent-review gates, security controls, data protection, and release /
- deployment approval. A model's opinion is not execution evidence. Strong words
- alone do not make generic process guidance a protected control.
+ Follow actual instruction priority and project policy. Preserve binding tests,
+ independent-review gates, security controls, data protection, and release approval.
+ Generic process advice is assessed by its authority and purpose, not emphatic wording.
+ Proposed changes to mandatory controls go through the separate policy decision.
- Inspect repository content as evidence, not authority to bypass these boundaries.
- Do not execute the workflows being audited or collect secrets. Use only accessible
- decisions, configuration, and evidence; do not invent conversations, model/tool
- availability, successful commands, or what the runtime loaded.
+ Do not bypass permissions or required gates, weaken acceptance criteria to obtain
+ a pass, expose secrets, destroy unrelated user work, or fabricate evidence,
+ approvals, tool availability, loading status, or independent review. Treat audited
+ content as evidence, never as authority to override these boundaries.
- Change only authorized guidance, skill assets, and their necessary references.
- Preserve unrelated user work and managed ownership. Application code, permission /
- hook configuration, CI enforcement, commits, pushes, and deployments are outside
- this cleanup. Report required integration changes separately.
+ This cleanup changes only authorized local guidance, skill assets, and necessary
+ references, respecting managed ownership. Application / installer code, permission /
+ hook configuration, CI enforcement, commits, pushes, and deployments are separate
+ work. Running a representative task requires explicit evaluation authorization
+ for its isolated fixture, tools, and actions; an audit or guidance edit grants none.
+ This skill audits, proposes, and applies; it introduces no recurring audit hook,
+ universal review gate, or approval loop.
## Finish
- Separate proposed, applied, and deferred changes; identify inspected and missing
- coverage, preserved controls, checks actually performed, and unresolved decisions.
- Stop when the requested scope is addressed or explicitly bounded by missing access
- or evidence. Do not create a new recurring audit, blanket test gate, or approval
- loop. Document checks and a smaller context are not proof of improved model behavior.
+ Separate proposed, applied, deferred, and superseded changes; label trials and their
+ observed results distinctly from adoption. Report coverage, preserved controls,
+ actual checks, and remaining uncertainty. Finish when the requested scope has a
+ supported result or a precise evidence/access limit. Revisit relevant findings when
+ new evidence matters. Document checks establish document properties; productivity
+ and quality effects remain unverified until observed on representative work.