audit-change

Reconcile AUD artifacts by dispositioning findings and routing them to specs.

26|3|Updated Oct 9, 2025
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/davidlee/spec-driver --skill audit-change
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: audit-change
Source: https://github.com/davidlee/spec-driver/tree/main/.spec-driver/skills/audit-change
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/davidlee/spec-driver --skill audit-change

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

It prevents audits from becoming half-done notes by forcing every AUD finding to be evidenced, dispositioned, reconciled into authoritative specs/contracts, and only then considered closure-grade.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Canonical audit reconciliation loop: Runs the full lifecycle from draft to completion by requiring explicit dispositions per finding.
  • Mode-aware auditing: Supports conformance (post-implementation tied to a delta), discovery (backfill/existing-code investigation), and correct delta ownership mapping.
  • Evidence-to-spec routing: Prefers reconciling in-scope authority via spec_patch, then revision for authority shifts, and consults when routing is ambiguous.

Quick Start

Run audit-change to reconcile your AUD findings by creating or updating the AUD-* artifact, routing each finding to the correct spec or follow-up path, and handing off to close only when every finding is dispositioned and reconciled.

Frequently Asked Questions about audit-change

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I ensure audit findings are dispositioned and reconciled into specs?

To ensure audit findings are dispositioned, you must reconcile them into authoritative specs or contracts using explicit routing rules like spec_patch. This prevents half-done audit notes by requiring machine-checkable inline dispositions before closure.

What is the best way to run a conformance audit on a delta implementation?

Running a conformance audit requires applying mode-aware auditing tied to your post-implementation delta. This process checks implementation drift against authoritative specs and routes every required verification check into the canonical lifecycle.

How do I handle ambiguous routing when reconciling audit findings?

When audit finding routing is ambiguous, you should consult the authority source to determine the correct path. The reconciliation loop prefers resolving in-scope authority via spec_patch, then shifts to revision for broader authority changes.

Can I use discovery auditing to investigate existing code backfill?

Yes, discovery auditing supports existing-code investigation and backfill scenarios. It maps correct delta ownership while requiring explicit dispositions per finding to ensure all discoveries are reconciled into authoritative specs.

Does audit closure require every finding to have an explicit disposition?

Yes, closure-grade audit handoff requires every finding to have a machine-checkable inline disposition. The canonical lifecycle mandates sync and validate steps to ensure all findings are fully reconciled before completion.

What happens if spec reconciliation encounters authority shifts during audit?

When spec reconciliation encounters authority shifts during an audit, the routing rules trigger a revision instead of a standard spec_patch. This ensures the specification accurately reflects the new authoritative contract before closure.