Breachreaper
Personalized Development Skills
npx -y skills add ultimatile/development-skills --skill breachreaperAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 0 stars0 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.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Audit existing code for stock-detectable API-contract breaches.
SKILL.md
5.5 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
breachreaper
Audit production code for stock-detectable API-contract breaches. Report findings only; do not edit production code. Resolutions (API redesign, trait extraction, dependency-direction repair, shared validator extraction) are architectural decisions left to the user.
Step 1 — Determine scope
- With argument: audit only the specified file, directory, or module.
- Without argument: audit the full workspace. Start with public API surfaces (
pub fn,pub struct,pub trait,pub enum, equivalent), then descend.
Step 2 — Run each class
Class A — Defensive-transformation replication
Structural shadow: the same defensive transformation (.to_order(), .normalize(), .canonicalize(), .coerce(), equivalent input-shaping calls) is invoked at N ≥ 2 callsites to repair producer output.
- Identify candidate transformation methods. Names matching
to_*,normalize*,canonicalize*,coerce*,as_*,into_*— transformations that take producer output and reshape it before use. - For each candidate,
rgthe symbol across non-test code. - Count callsites where the transformation is applied to a producer return value (not internal to the producer itself).
- Trigger: ≥ 2 such callsites with no producer-side change addressing the root cause.
Classification:
- Confirmed: ≥ 2 callsites, all on producer output, no producer-side enforcement.
- Suspected: ≥ 2 callsites but one is in a transitional context (deprecated path, test scaffolding).
- Not a breach: 1 callsite, or the transformation is the producer's own canonical exit point.
Class B — Parallel-implementation surface asymmetry
Structural shadow: two implementations are intentionally parallel (Dense / BlockSparse, sync / async, local / remote, eager / lazy), but their public function / method sets are asymmetric in a way not justified by inherent domain difference.
- Identify parallel-impl pairs. Heuristics:
- Sibling files / modules with parallel names (
dense.rs+block_sparse.rs). - Sibling types implementing the same trait, where both also expose impl-specific public methods.
- Naming conventions like
Foo+FooAsync,LocalX+RemoteX.
- Sibling files / modules with parallel names (
- For each pair, enumerate public function / method names. For Rust,
cargo public-apiper crate is the canonical source. - Strip parallel-axis prefixes / suffixes and compute the symmetric difference.
- Trigger: any function present on one side and missing on the other, where the missing side has no domain-level reason to lack it.
Classification:
- Confirmed: asymmetric surface forces consumers to reach expert-level internals on one side.
- Justified asymmetry: the missing function is meaningless for that impl (e.g.,
flush()on an immutable variant).
Class C — Architectural-boundary violation
Structural shadow: an import / use / #include / dep entry crosses a documented module boundary in the disallowed direction, or a pub (or equivalent) widens exposure beyond the rule.
- Check whether the project has a documented architectural rule: layering, hexagonal direction, module DAG, public / internal split. Look in
ARCHITECTURE.md,CLAUDE.md, top-level doc files,Cargo.tomlworkspace structure. - If no rule is documented, this class is N/A — exit.
- If a rule exists, walk the import / dep graph and flag edges contradicting it.
- Also flag
pubsymbols whose exposure widens past the rule.
Classification:
- Confirmed: import or
pubcrosses the rule. - N/A: no rule documented for the project.
Class D — Sibling-method guard asymmetry
Structural shadow: a public method has an input-validation guard (assert!, if !cond { return Err(...) }, equivalent) at entry, but a sibling method (same type, parallel signature, same constrained parameter shape) does not.
- Identify sibling-method clusters: methods on the same type whose signatures share constrained parameter shapes (size, count, rank, dimension, exponent, non-empty collection).
- For each cluster, check whether each method validates the shared constraint at entry.
- Trigger: ≥ 1 method validates, ≥ 1 sibling does not.
Classification:
- Confirmed: sibling asymmetry — at least one entry leaves the constraint unenforced.
- Justified asymmetry: the missing-guard method has a structurally different parameter contract (different invariant required).
Step 3 — Report
Group findings by class. For each finding, include:
- File:line of every callsite / symbol / edge.
- The structural shadow itself (callsite count, symmetric-difference set, import edge, sibling cluster).
- Resolution direction:
- Class A: producer-side API redesign (constrain the type, tighten the constructor, hide leaky variants behind enforcing constructors).
- Class B: trait extraction so the type system enforces symmetry.
- Class C: dependency-direction repair (move the dep, invert the interface, relocate the offending
pub). - Class D: shared validator extraction so siblings cannot diverge.
Do NOT propose patches at callsites.
Principles
- Stock-auditable only. Every finding must be justifiable from current syntactic structure without intent input. Findings requiring "this should be doing X" are out of scope — leave for manual review.
- Report, never fix. Do not edit production code.
- Structural shadow ≥ 2. N = 1 is a one-off, not a pattern. The proliferation IS the signal.