Audit workflow

Audit Workflow

Goal

Audit a WORKFLOW document. WORKFLOWs are multi-step procedures with explicit phases, often with human-approval checkpoints between phases — distinct from RULEs (always-on, no procedure) and SKILLs (invocable, single-pass).

The audit catches the failure modes specific to multi-step procedures: ceremonial checkpoints, phase amnesia, hidden roll-back assumptions, mode confusion, checkpoint-as-shutdown, implicit ordering.

Instructions

1. Read the workflow in full.
2. State the workflow's intent in one sentence.
3. Confirm document type is WORKFLOW. A workflow with no real checkpoints may be a SKILL (use audit-skill); a workflow that's mostly behavioral guidance may be a RULE (use audit-rule). For Antigravity workflows specifically: a .agent/workflows/*.md file that orchestrates other skills via persona-shifting (like the /startcycle example) is correctly a WORKFLOW.
4. Map the phases. List the distinct phases, the artifacts each produces, and the checkpoints between them.
5. Read at least one structurally-proven exemplar of a workflow in the same vendor format.
6. Walk the audit checklist (15 checks) from steering-audit-suite/shared/checklist.md.
7. Phase-boundary checks (workflow-specific):
   • Is each phase's input clearly defined?
   • Is each phase's output a concrete artifact (file, decision, report)?
   • Is each checkpoint a real decision point, or is it ceremonial?
   • Can a phase be skipped or reordered? Is that explicitly allowed or accidental?
   • Is approval requested at the right point (after the cost-of-redo becomes high, before destructive action)?
   • Are roles / authorities defined for who can approve each checkpoint?
8. For Antigravity workflows specifically:
   • Frontmatter has description field?
   • Slash-command name (filename) matches the user's expectation when typing /<name>?
   • If the workflow shifts between agent personas (per the agents.md pattern), are persona transitions explicit?
   • Are the skills it orchestrates actually present in .agent/skills/?
9. Run the portability audit from steering-audit-suite/shared/portability.md if the workflow invokes specific tools.
10. Distinguish surface fixes from intent fixes.
11. Produce the audit report in the format defined in steering-audit-suite/shared/output-format.md.

Workflow-Specific Failure Modes

In addition to the general checklist, watch for:

• Ceremonial checkpoints — approval gates that produce nothing the approver actually evaluates
• Phase amnesia — the workflow assumes context from earlier phases without recording it in an artifact
• Hidden roll-back assumption — the workflow assumes failed phases can be retried with no state cleanup
• Mode confusion — the workflow runs in plan mode, agent mode, or interactive mode but doesn't say which
• Checkpoint-as-shutdown — the workflow stops at a checkpoint and has no way to resume
• Implicit ordering — the order of phases matters but isn't enforced; an agent might run them concurrently or out of order
• Orphaned skill references (Antigravity-specific) — the workflow names a skill that doesn't exist in .agent/skills/

Examples

Input: A .agent/workflows/release.md with one phase that says "build, test, and publish."

Audit finding (Document type): This is a single-pass action with no checkpoints. Reformat candidate — should be a SKILL (.agent/skills/release/SKILL.md), not a workflow. Workflows in Antigravity are for orchestrating multiple skills with persona shifts or user-approved checkpoints. A single-pass action is properly a skill.

Input: A workflow that says "Phase 1: write specs. Phase 2: generate code. Phase 3: deploy." with no artifact handover described.

Audit finding (Phase amnesia): The workflow lists phases but doesn't say where Phase 1's specs live or how Phase 2 reads them. Without artifact handover, Phase 2 will either re-derive what Phase 1 already produced or skip the dependency entirely.

Constraints

• Don't propose collapsing a multi-phase workflow into a single-pass skill without checking why the phases exist. The checkpoints often reflect human-judgment requirements that can't be automated.
• Don't make stylistic findings about phase naming or ordering aesthetics. Audit for whether the phases produce the right artifacts and whether the checkpoints are meaningful decision points.
• Don't apply changes without explicit authorization from the workflow owner.

Reference Files

• steering-audit-suite/shared/checklist.md
• steering-audit-suite/shared/doc-types.md
• steering-audit-suite/shared/portability.md
• steering-audit-suite/shared/reference-exemplars.md
• steering-audit-suite/shared/output-format.md