Claude md audit

CLAUDE.md Audit

Current Audit Targets

echo "--- Existing CLAUDE.md files ---"
{ find . -maxdepth 6 -name CLAUDE.md -not -path "./.git/*" -not -path "*/node_modules/*" 2>/dev/null; \
  find . -maxdepth 4 -name ".claude.local.md" 2>/dev/null; } | sort -u
echo "--- ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md ---"
test -f "$HOME/.claude/CLAUDE.md" && echo "$HOME/.claude/CLAUDE.md ($(wc -l < "$HOME/.claude/CLAUDE.md") lines)" || echo "(absent)"
echo "--- Tech stack ---"
cat .claude/tech-stack 2>/dev/null || echo "(not set)"

Overview

Audit existing CLAUDE.md files against a quality rubric, then propose minimal append-only diffs. This is a re-grade loop, not a regeneration. The skill honors rule S1.5 (CLAUDE.md is protected) — it never overwrites and never rewrites whole sections without explicit user approval.

This skill is distinct from setup-bootstrap (one-time creation of CLAUDE.md from a fresh codebase scan) and setup-audit (refreshes architecture-principles.md, not CLAUDE.md). Audit grades intent against reality; bootstrap creates intent from scratch.

When To Use

• Periodic CLAUDE.md health check (recommended every 4-8 weeks)
• After significant codebase changes that may have invalidated documented commands
• When AI sessions start hitting friction that suggests stale context (broken build commands, references to deleted files, missing recent conventions)
• When the engineer says "CLAUDE.md feels off" or "is the AI seeing the right things?"

When NOT To Use

• First-time setup of a repo — use /mtk-setup (which runs setup-bootstrap)
• Refreshing architecture principles — use /mtk-setup --audit (which runs setup-audit)
• Repos with no CLAUDE.md yet — bootstrap first; audit only re-grades existing intent
• After a single session of edits — the rot worth detecting takes weeks to accumulate; auditing too often manufactures churn

Workflow

Phase 1 — Discovery

The dynamic-context block at the top of this skill already lists target files. Confirm the inventory before proceeding. If the project root has no CLAUDE.md, stop and tell the user to run /mtk-setup first — there is no intent to audit.

For each file found, record: absolute path, line count, last-modified date.

Phase 2 — Currency Cross-Checks

Currency is the most common rot. For the project-root CLAUDE.md, run these checks before scoring:

1. Commands referenced exist. Extract any bash, dotnet, npm, pnpm, python, make, pytest, or cargo lines from CLAUDE.md. For each:
   • If it references a script (scripts/foo.sh), confirm the file exists.
   • If it references a package script (npm run X), confirm X is in package.json scripts.
   • If it references a Makefile target, confirm the target exists.
   • If it references a dotnet solution / project, confirm the file exists.
2. Files and paths referenced exist. Extract any path-like strings (src/..., tests/..., app/...). Confirm each path resolves. Stale paths from old layouts are common rot.
3. Tech stack matches. Resolve with bash scripts/resolve-tech-stack.sh "$PWD". If CLAUDE.md describes a different stack, that is a Critical currency issue. In a polyglot repo, a root CLAUDE.md that names only one stack while other subtrees declare their own is a currency issue too — it should name the per-subtree pins (<subtree>/.claude/tech-stack or .claude/tech-stack.map) so a reader is not handed the root's build commands for every directory.

Record each broken reference. These are evidence for the Currency criterion.

Phase 3 — Rubric Scoring

For each CLAUDE.md, score against six weighted criteria:

Criterion	Weight	Definition
Commands & workflows	20	Are build / test / dev / lint commands documented and current?
Architecture clarity	20	Can a new agent understand the codebase shape in one read?
Non-obvious patterns	15	Are gotchas, conventions, and project-specific quirks captured?
Conciseness	15	Is the file dense — no verbose preamble, no restating the obvious?
Currency	15	Do all referenced commands and paths still resolve? (Phase 2 evidence)
Actionability	15	Are rules concrete enough to act on, vs. vague platitudes?

Map total to grade: A 90-100, B 70-89, C 50-69, D 30-49, F 0-29.

Phase 4 — Quality Report (No Edits Yet)

Stop before any edit. Emit the report and wait for user approval.

## CLAUDE.md Quality Report

### Files audited
- ./CLAUDE.md — 142 lines, last modified 2026-03-12

### Project root: ./CLAUDE.md
**Score: 78/100 — Grade B**

| Criterion             | Score | Notes |
|-----------------------|-------|-------|
| Commands & workflows  | 14/20 | `npm run dev` no longer in package.json (now `pnpm dev`) |
| Architecture clarity  | 18/20 | Clear, but does not mention the recent /workers split |
| Non-obvious patterns  | 12/15 | Captures EF Core gotchas; missing the new auth middleware quirk |
| Conciseness           | 14/15 | Tight; no obvious bloat |
| Currency              |  9/15 | 1 broken script ref, 1 deleted file path |
| Actionability         | 11/15 | Some rules are aspirational ("write good tests") |

**Broken references found:**
- Line 24: `npm run dev` — script no longer exists
- Line 91: `src/legacy/auth.ts` — file deleted in #1207

**Recommended additions (will show as diffs after approval):**
- Update line 24 build command to current pnpm script
- Add gotcha section for the new auth middleware
- Remove or rewrite line 91 path reference

**Recommended removals:**
- (none — biased against deletion without approval)

Then ask: "Approve these changes? (yes / partial / no)"

Phase 5 — Targeted Diffs

After explicit approval, emit one diff per accepted change. Bias toward append or replace-single-line over rewrite. Never Write over CLAUDE.md. Always use Edit with explicit old_string / new_string.

For each change, the diff block follows this shape:

### Change 1: ./CLAUDE.md line 24

**Why:** `npm run dev` no longer exists; `pnpm dev` is the current command.

**Before:**
\`\`\`
- Run dev server: `npm run dev`
\`\`\`

**After:**
\`\`\`
- Run dev server: `pnpm dev`
\`\`\`

If the user approved "partial", apply only the explicitly named subset.

Phase 6 — Verification

After applying edits:

1. Re-run the Phase 2 currency checks on the modified file.
2. Confirm line count is within 10% of original (no accidental rewrite).
3. Report the new grade.

Rules

• Never auto-delete content. The user owns CLAUDE.md. Removals require explicit per-line approval; "approve all" does not authorize deletions.
• Never invent issues to look useful. If the file is genuinely clean, say so. The anti-sandbagging rule from .claude/references/review-finding-schema.md applies.
• Append over rewrite. New gotchas and commands go at the end of the relevant section, not into a restructured replacement.
• Use Edit, never Write. The protected-file rule (S1.5) means Write on CLAUDE.md is a bug, even if the engineer asks for it.
• Honor the active CLAUDE.md style. If the file uses tables, additions should use tables. If it uses bullet lists, match that. Do not impose a template.

Common Rationalizations

See .claude/skills/context-engineering/SKILL.md for the shared MTK rationalization table. Audit-specific traps:

• "I should find at least one issue per criterion." No. Empty findings with rationale beats manufactured ones.
• "This whole section is stale; I should rewrite it." No. Propose a diff of the smallest change that fixes the gap, then ask. Wholesale rewrites are the engineer's call, not the skill's.
• "The codebase has so many new conventions; I should add them all." Captures should be specific to this CLAUDE.md, not a generic best-practices dump. If a convention is not yet enforced, it doesn't belong here.

Red Flags

• Audit report with no rubric scores (just prose impressions)
• Edits applied before user approval
• A "rewrite the whole file" proposal in Phase 4
• Currency cross-checks skipped — broken-command rot is the highest-value finding and must not be missed

Verification

• Phase 2 currency checks ran and broken references are listed (or "none found" stated explicitly)
• Each CLAUDE.md got a six-criterion rubric score and grade
• No edits applied before user approval
• Edits used Edit tool with explicit old/new strings (never Write)
• Post-edit line count is within 10% of original
• Report names specific lines and reasons; no vague "could be improved"