Sacco codebase audit
Systematic codebase audit with parallel concern-specific agents and structured findings. Use for code reviews, pre-production hardening, security audits, architecture reviews, or engineering quality assessments. Produces prioritized findings with severity, file:line references, and remediation plan. Triggers: "audit", "review the code", "hardening", "production readiness", "security review", "quality assessment", "deep pass".From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add adrien-sacco/sacco-skills --skill sacco-codebase-auditAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
4.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Codebase Audit Engine
Dispatches parallel audit agents across concern areas, collects structured findings, and produces a prioritized remediation plan.
When to Use
- Pre-production readiness review
- Post-phase quality gate (between major phase groups)
- Security audit before deployment
- Architecture review after significant changes
- Performance assessment before scaling
- Engineering quality assessment for new codebases
Audit Scopes
Select one or more scopes. Each scope runs as a parallel agent.
| Scope | What It Checks |
|---|---|
| security | OWASP top 10, auth/authz, secrets exposure, injection vectors, dependency vulnerabilities |
| architecture | Layering violations, circular dependencies, coupling, separation of concerns, API design |
| performance | N+1 queries, missing indexes, unbounded collections, hot paths, memory leaks, cache strategy |
| engineering | Error handling, logging, testing coverage, naming, dead code, code duplication, type safety |
| data | Schema design, migration safety, data integrity, backup/recovery, temporal consistency |
| operations | Observability, health checks, graceful shutdown, configuration management, deployment safety |
Finding Format
Every finding follows this exact structure:
### Finding <scope>-<number>: <title>
- **Severity:** Critical | High | Medium | Low | Info
- **File:** `path/to/file.rs:123`
- **Description:** What the problem is, with evidence.
- **Impact:** What can go wrong if this is not fixed.
- **Recommendation:** Specific fix with code example if applicable.
Severity Definitions
| Severity | Definition | SLA |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | Data loss, security breach, or system down risk. Blocks deployment. | Fix before merge |
| High | Significant bug, performance degradation, or architectural violation. | Fix this sprint |
| Medium | Code quality issue, missing edge case, or maintainability concern. | Fix next sprint |
| Low | Style issue, minor optimization, or documentation gap. | Backlog |
| Info | Observation, suggestion, or positive callout. | Optional |
Execution Protocol
1. Scope Selection
Ask the user which scopes to audit, or default to all if "full audit" is requested.
2. Agent Dispatch
Launch one agent per scope in parallel. Each agent:
- Reads all relevant files for its scope
- Produces findings in the standard format
- Numbers findings sequentially within its scope (e.g., security-1, security-2)
- Does NOT fix anything — audit only
Agent prompt template:
You are auditing this codebase for {scope} concerns.
Read all relevant files. For each issue found, produce a finding in this exact format:
[finding format from above]
Be thorough. Check every file. Do not skip edge cases.
Do not suggest fixes that introduce new problems.
Number findings as {scope}-1, {scope}-2, etc.
Return ONLY findings, no preamble.
3. Findings Collection
After all agents complete:
- Collect all findings into a single
docs/audit-report.md - Sort by severity (Critical first, then High, etc.)
- Add a summary table at the top:
# Audit Report — <date>
## Summary
| Severity | Count |
|----------|-------|
| Critical | 2 |
| High | 5 |
| Medium | 8 |
| Low | 3 |
| Info | 1 |
## Critical Findings
...
## High Findings
...
4. Remediation Plan
Produce a docs/remediation-plan.md:
- Group findings by fix effort (quick wins vs. structural changes)
- Order within groups by severity
- For each finding, estimate: trivial / small / medium / large
- Mark dependencies between findings (e.g., "fix arch-3 before perf-2")
5. Verification Pass
After remediation:
- Re-run the audit for the affected scopes
- Verify each finding is addressed
- Update the audit report with resolution status
Rules
- Audit agents are READ-ONLY. They never modify code.
- Findings must reference specific file:line, not vague descriptions.
- Do not pad findings. If a scope is clean, say so.
- The user reviews findings before any remediation begins.
- Re-audit after fixes to confirm resolution.
Integration
- With sacco-phased-execution: Run between major phase groups as a quality gate
- As a milestone gate: Run before shipping, at defined project milestones
- As structured self-critique: The audit is the systematic version of reviewing your own work