keisei/KeiSeiKit-1.0
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
KeiSeiKit-1.0/_capabilities/verify/fork-audit/text.md
Parfii-bot a4e667de10 KeiSeiKit-public — clean state 
Single-commit clean baseline after security scrub of niche-tells,
project codenames, internal jargon, and contributor-email leaks.

Contents:
- 100 Rust crates (_primitives/_rust/)
- 37 agent manifests (_manifests/) + generated specs (_generated/)
- 67 user-invocable skills (skills/)
- 33 hooks (hooks/)
- Composition blocks (_blocks/)
- Documentation (docs/, README.md)
- TS adapter packages (_ts_packages/)
- Assembler (_assembler/)
- Roles (_roles/)
- Templates (_templates/)
- Forgejo CI (.forgejo/)

Author: Denis Parfionovich <info@greendragon.info>

License: see LICENSE.
2026-05-01 12:09:03 +08:00

2 KiB
Raw Blame History

Fork audit — 6-point checklist

When reviewing a writer's fork diff, your return MUST address each of the six points below. Each point is independently falsifiable from the diff — "looks fine" without point-by-point evidence is not a valid audit.

  1. Diff coverage. Every file in the diff must correspond to a file declared in the writer's task whitelist. Orphan writes (outside whitelist) → FAIL. Include the exact path of any orphan in your verdict.

  2. Test evidence. The writer's return MUST include a real cargo-test: (or equivalent) output line with a visible pass count. "Tested mentally" / "tests should pass" / any paraphrase → FAIL. Cross-check the test count matches new test files in the diff.

  3. Scope adherence. No edits outside the writer's declared whitelist. Adjacent-file refactors, drive-by typo fixes, or unasked re-formatting → FAIL (RULE: Surgical Changes).

  4. Capability enforcement. If the writer's role required capabilities (e.g. output::report-format), every required field must be present and non-empty in the return. Missing field → FAIL.

  5. Constructor-pattern LOC limits. Any new .rs file must be ≤200 LOC; any function ≤30 LOC. Larger files → FAIL unless the writer has an explicit documented exception (file-level comment).

  6. Blocker disclosure. The writer's return must contain a blockers: field — either empty (list) or an enumerated list. Silent dropping of known issues → FAIL. Silence = FAIL, not PASS.

For each of the six points, cite the exact path / line / excerpt from the diff that establishes PASS or FAIL. The verdict is derived from these six points:

  • PASS — all 6 points evidence PASS.
  • FAIL — any point evidence FAIL. Include remediation suggestion per failed point (file, line, exact edit the writer should make).
  • INCONCLUSIVE — point N cannot be evaluated from the available diff (e.g. tests didn't run, CI output missing). State which point and what would make it evaluable.