Skill v1.0.1
currentAutomated scan100/100+3 new
name: audit-codebase description: Codebase health audit scoring 7 categories with progression plan argument-hint: "[path] [--focus security|performance|quality]" effort: medium disable-model-invocation: true metadata: version: "1.0.1"
Codebase health audit
Score your codebase across 7 health categories, identify weak spots, and get a prioritized progression plan. Each category is scored 1-10 with specific, actionable findings.
Time: 3-8 minutes depending on codebase size | Scope: Full project
Instructions
You are a senior engineering consultant performing a codebase health assessment. Analyze the project across all 7 categories (or a subset if $ARGUMENTS specifies categories), score each one, and produce a progression plan.
If $ARGUMENTS contains category names (e.g., "secrets security tests"), only audit those categories. Otherwise, audit all 7.
Category 1: Secrets (weight: 15%)
Scan for hardcoded credentials, API keys, and sensitive data in code.
# API keys and tokens in codegrep -rn --include="*.{js,ts,py,go,java,rb,php,yaml,yml,json,toml,env,cfg,ini,conf}" \-E '(?i)(api[_-]?key|apikey|secret[_-]?key|password|passwd|token|bearer)\s*[=:]\s*["'\''"][^"'\'']{8,}' \--exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git,dist,build,target,__pycache__,.venv} . 2>/dev/null | head -20# Known provider patternsgrep -rn -E 'sk-[a-zA-Z0-9]{20,}|ghp_[a-zA-Z0-9]{36}|AKIA[A-Z0-9]{16}|xox[bps]-[a-zA-Z0-9\-]{20,}' \--exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git,dist,build,target} . 2>/dev/null | head -10# .env files committedfind . -name ".env*" -not -name ".env.example" -not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" -type f 2>/dev/null# .gitignore coverage[ -f ".gitignore" ] && {for pattern in ".env" "*.pem" "*.key" "*.p12"; dogrep -q "$pattern" .gitignore 2>/dev/null && echo "OK: $pattern in .gitignore" || echo "MISSING: $pattern not in .gitignore"done}
Scoring:
- 10: Zero secrets, .gitignore covers all sensitive patterns, .env.example exists
- 7-9: No secrets in code, minor .gitignore gaps
- 4-6: 1-3 potential secrets found (may be false positives), or .env committed
- 1-3: Multiple secrets in code, private keys committed, no .gitignore protection
Category 2: Security (weight: 15%)
Check for OWASP-style vulnerabilities and unsafe patterns.
# SQL injection patternsgrep -rn --include="*.{js,ts,py,java,go,rb,php}" \-E '(query|execute|exec)\s*\(\s*[`"'\''"].*\+|\$\{|%s|\.format\(' \--exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git,dist,build,target,test,__test__} . 2>/dev/null | head -15# eval/exec usagegrep -rn -E '\b(eval|exec|execSync|Function\(|setTimeout\([^,]*[+`]|setInterval\([^,]*[+`])' \--include="*.{js,ts,py}" --exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git,dist} . 2>/dev/null | head -10# Unsafe deserializationgrep -rn -E '(pickle\.loads|yaml\.load\(|JSON\.parse\(.*user|unserialize\()' \--exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git,dist} . 2>/dev/null | head -10# Missing input validation on routes/endpointsgrep -rn -E '(app\.(get|post|put|delete|patch)|router\.(get|post|put|delete))' \--include="*.{js,ts}" --exclude-dir={node_modules,.git,dist} . 2>/dev/null | wc -l
Scoring:
- 10: No injection patterns, no eval/exec, input validation on all endpoints, CSP headers
- 7-9: Minor issues (1-2 eval usages in non-user-facing code)
- 4-6: Some injection patterns, missing validation on several endpoints
- 1-3: Active SQL injection risk, eval with user input, no input sanitization
Category 3: Dependencies (weight: 15%)
Audit package health, known CVEs, and freshness.
# Node.js audit[ -f "package-lock.json" ] && npm audit --json 2>/dev/null | jq '.metadata.vulnerabilities' 2>/dev/null[ -f "package.json" ] && npx npm-check 2>/dev/null | tail -20# Python[ -f "requirements.txt" ] && pip-audit -r requirements.txt 2>/dev/null | tail -20[ -f "pyproject.toml" ] && pip-audit 2>/dev/null | tail -20# Rust[ -f "Cargo.toml" ] && cargo audit 2>/dev/null | tail -20# Go[ -f "go.mod" ] && govulncheck ./... 2>/dev/null | tail -20# Lockfile presencefor lockfile in package-lock.json yarn.lock pnpm-lock.yaml Cargo.lock go.sum poetry.lock; do[ -f "$lockfile" ] && echo "OK: $lockfile exists"done[ ! -f "package-lock.json" ] && [ ! -f "yarn.lock" ] && [ ! -f "pnpm-lock.yaml" ] && [ -f "package.json" ] && echo "MISSING: No lockfile for Node.js project"
Scoring:
- 10: Zero CVEs, lockfile present, all dependencies <6 months old
- 7-9: No critical/high CVEs, minor outdated packages
- 4-6: 1-3 high CVEs, or >50% dependencies outdated by a year+
- 1-3: Critical CVEs, no lockfile, abandoned dependencies
Category 4: Structure (weight: 10%)
Evaluate file organization, naming conventions, and module boundaries.
# File count per top-level directoryfor dir in */; do[ -d "$dir" ] && [ "$dir" != "node_modules/" ] && [ "$dir" != ".git/" ] && [ "$dir" != "vendor/" ] && \echo "$dir: $(find "$dir" -type f -not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" 2>/dev/null | wc -l) files"done# Deeply nested files (complexity indicator)find . -type f -not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" -not -path "*/vendor/*" -mindepth 6 2>/dev/null | head -10# Mixed naming conventionsfind . -type f -name "*_*" -not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" 2>/dev/null | head -5find . -type f -name "*-*" -not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" 2>/dev/null | head -5# Circular dependency indicators (for JS/TS projects)[ -f "package.json" ] && npx madge --circular --extensions ts,js src/ 2>/dev/null | head -20
Scoring:
- 10: Clear module boundaries, consistent naming, no circular deps, flat hierarchy
- 7-9: Good structure with minor inconsistencies
- 4-6: Mixed conventions, some circular deps, unclear module boundaries
- 1-3: No clear structure, deeply nested files, widespread circular deps
Category 5: Tests (weight: 15%)
Assess test coverage, test quality, and testing practices.
# Test file count vs source file countTEST_COUNT=$(find . -type f \( -name "*.test.*" -o -name "*.spec.*" -o -name "test_*" -o -path "*/test/*" -o -path "*/__tests__/*" \) \-not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" 2>/dev/null | wc -l)SRC_COUNT=$(find . -type f \( -name "*.ts" -o -name "*.js" -o -name "*.py" -o -name "*.go" -o -name "*.java" \) \-not -name "*.test.*" -not -name "*.spec.*" -not -name "test_*" \-not -path "*/node_modules/*" -not -path "*/.git/*" -not -path "*/dist/*" 2>/dev/null | wc -l)echo "Test files: $TEST_COUNT | Source files: $SRC_COUNT | Ratio: $(echo "scale=2; $TEST_COUNT / ($SRC_COUNT + 1)" | bc)"# Coverage config presencefor cfg in jest.config.* vitest.config.* .nycrc .coveragerc pytest.ini setup.cfg; do[ -f "$cfg" ] && echo "OK: $cfg exists"done# Coverage report (if available)[ -d "coverage" ] && [ -f "coverage/coverage-summary.json" ] && cat coverage/coverage-summary.json | jq '.total' 2>/dev/null# Snapshot test count (potential maintenance burden)find . -name "*.snap" -not -path "*/node_modules/*" 2>/dev/null | wc -l
Scoring:
- 10: >0.8 test ratio, coverage >80%, CI runs tests, no stale snapshots
- 7-9: >0.5 test ratio, coverage >60%, coverage config present
- 4-6: Some tests exist but gaps are obvious, no coverage tracking
- 1-3: <0.2 test ratio or no tests at all
Category 6: Imports (weight: 10%)
Check for unused imports, circular dependencies, and type coverage.
# Unused imports (TypeScript/JavaScript)[ -f "tsconfig.json" ] && npx tsc --noEmit 2>&1 | grep -c "declared but" 2>/dev/null[ -f "tsconfig.json" ] && npx tsc --noEmit 2>&1 | grep "declared but" | head -10# TypeScript strict mode[ -f "tsconfig.json" ] && grep -E '"strict"|"noImplicitAny"|"strictNullChecks"' tsconfig.json 2>/dev/null# Python unused imports[ -f "pyproject.toml" ] || [ -f "setup.py" ] && python -m pyflakes . 2>/dev/null | grep "imported but unused" | head -10# Wildcard imports (code smell)grep -rn 'import \*' --include="*.{py,ts,js}" --exclude-dir={node_modules,vendor,.git} . 2>/dev/null | head -10
Scoring:
- 10: Zero unused imports, TypeScript strict mode, no wildcard imports
- 7-9: <5 unused imports, strict mode enabled with minor gaps
- 4-6: 5-20 unused imports, no strict mode, some wildcard imports
- 1-3: >20 unused imports, widespread wildcard imports, no type checking
Category 7: AI patterns (weight: 20%)
Evaluate Claude Code configuration maturity and AI-assisted development readiness.
# CLAUDE.md presence and quality[ -f "CLAUDE.md" ] && echo "OK: CLAUDE.md exists ($(wc -l < CLAUDE.md) lines)" || echo "MISSING: No CLAUDE.md"[ -f ".claude/settings.json" ] && echo "OK: .claude/settings.json exists" || echo "MISSING: No .claude/settings.json"# Custom commandsCOMMANDS=$(find .claude/commands -name "*.md" 2>/dev/null | wc -l)echo "Custom commands: $COMMANDS"# HooksHOOKS_CFG=$(grep -c "hooks" .claude/settings.json 2>/dev/null || echo "0")echo "Hook configurations: $HOOKS_CFG"# Rules filesRULES=$(find .claude/rules -name "*.md" 2>/dev/null | wc -l)echo "Rule files: $RULES"# AgentsAGENTS=$(find .claude/agents -name "*.md" 2>/dev/null | wc -l)echo "Agent definitions: $AGENTS"# SkillsSKILLS=$(find .claude/skills -name "*.md" 2>/dev/null | wc -l)echo "Skills: $SKILLS"# .gitignore for AI artifactsgrep -q "claude" .gitignore 2>/dev/null && echo "OK: Claude patterns in .gitignore" || echo "INFO: No Claude patterns in .gitignore"
Scoring:
- 10: CLAUDE.md with conventions, hooks configured, custom commands, rules, agents
- 7-9: CLAUDE.md exists with project context, some commands or rules
- 4-6: Basic CLAUDE.md, no hooks or commands
- 1-3: No CLAUDE.md or empty CLAUDE.md
Scoring & report
Overall score calculation
Overall = (Secrets * 0.15) + (Security * 0.15) + (Dependencies * 0.15) +(Structure * 0.10) + (Tests * 0.15) + (Imports * 0.10) +(AI Patterns * 0.20)
Round to one decimal place.
Output format
## Codebase Health Audit**Project**: [directory name]**Date**: [timestamp]**Categories audited**: [all 7 or filtered subset]### Overall Score: [X.X] / 10| Category | Score | Weight | Weighted | Key Finding ||----------|-------|--------|----------|-------------|| Secrets | X/10 | 15% | X.XX | [one-line summary] || Security | X/10 | 15% | X.XX | [one-line summary] || Dependencies | X/10 | 15% | X.XX | [one-line summary] || Structure | X/10 | 10% | X.XX | [one-line summary] || Tests | X/10 | 15% | X.XX | [one-line summary] || Imports | X/10 | 10% | X.XX | [one-line summary] || AI Patterns | X/10 | 20% | X.XX | [one-line summary] || **Overall** | | **100%** | **X.XX** | |### Detailed Findings#### 🔴 Critical (fix immediately)-[Finding with file:line reference and concrete fix]#### 🟡 Warning (fix this week)-[Finding with context and suggested approach]#### 🟢 Info (nice to improve)-[Observation with optional suggestion]### Progression Plan[Based on overall score, show the appropriate tier]#### Tier 1: Foundation (current score <5, target: 5)Focus on eliminating critical risks before anything else.| Priority | Action | Category | Impact | Effort ||----------|--------|----------|--------|--------|| 1 | [specific action] | [category] | [score gain] | [time estimate] || 2 | [specific action] | [category] | [score gain] | [time estimate] || ... | | | | |#### Tier 2: Solid (current score 5-7, target: 8)Build reliable practices on top of the foundation.| Priority | Action | Category | Impact | Effort ||----------|--------|----------|--------|--------|| 1 | [specific action] | [category] | [score gain] | [time estimate] || ... | | | | |#### Tier 3: Excellent (current score 8+, target: 10)Polish and optimize for maximum team velocity.| Priority | Action | Category | Impact | Effort ||----------|--------|----------|--------|--------|| 1 | [specific action] | [category] | [score gain] | [time estimate] || ... | | | | |### Quick Wins (< 30 minutes each)1.[Action that improves score with minimal effort]2.[...]3.[...]
Severity split
Approximately 70% of findings should be automatable (scripts, linters, CI checks can detect them). Flag the remaining 30% as requiring human judgment, and explain why automation falls short for those cases.
Sources:
- Variant Systems codebase analyzer plugin (variantsystems.io, Feb 2026): 7-category analysis framework
- OWASP Top 10 (2021): Security category patterns
- Claude Code Security Hardening Guide: AI Patterns category baseline
$ARGUMENTS