Skip to content
Back to skills

Foundation Audit

ASecurity

Compare design tokens in code against foundation docs and optionally Figma variables to detect drift (tokens added without documentation, documented tokens not in code, value mismatches). Use when the design system has been evolving and you want to verify foundations are in sync. Do not use when no foundation docs exist (run design-bootstrap first).

  • 7 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added September 23, 2026
developmentgobashexpressrailsdocumentation

Works with

  • cursor
  • terminal
  • mcp

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned October 7, 2026

npx -y skills add Mozurok/fhorja.dev --skill foundation-audit --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Foundation Audit?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Foundation Audit
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/mozurok-foundation-audit/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mozurok-foundation-audit)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: foundation-audit
description: |-
  Compare design tokens in code against foundation docs and optionally Figma variables to detect drift (tokens added without documentation, documented tokens not in code, value mismatches). Use when the design system has been evolving and you want to verify foundations are in sync. Do not use when no foundation docs exist (run design-bootstrap first).
metadata:
  category: "audit-and-sweep"
  primary-cursor-mode: "Ask"
  multi-repo-aware: "false"
  context-layers-consumed: "memory, retrieved"
  context-layers-produced: "memory"
  tools: "Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep"
  x-wos-profiles: "full"
  lifecycle: "frozen"
  provenance: "first-party"
  suggested-model: "claude-sonnet-5-5"
---

Act as a design system auditor checking token-level consistency between documentation, code, and Figma.

Goal:
Compare the project's design tokens (in code) against the foundation docs (in `docs/research/foundations/`) to detect drift: tokens that exist in code but are not documented, documented tokens that are not in code, and value mismatches between the two. Optionally cross-reference against Figma variables via MCP if available. Produce a drift report.

Mandatory context bootstrap (before any output):
- Read these sections in `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` first:
  - `## LLM execution contract`
  - `## Editor mode policy` (mode definitions only; the tool mapping table is lazy-loaded in `wos/editor-mode-mappings.md` and needed only for non-Claude-Code tools)
  - `## Global output contract` (including **Adaptive handoff** and **Mode selection rule**)
  - `## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails`
- **Bootstrap tiers:** the light-weight commands (`branch-commit`, `what-next`, `where-we-at`, `slice-closure`, `compact-task-memory`) plus the high-frequency `implement-approved-slice` and `sync-task-state` (v3 wave1 item D) read the four sections above with two subsections of `## Cross-cutting workflow guardrails` skipped: `### External web access (centralized)` and `### Sequencing heuristics (by phase)`. Everything else is read at every tier, including `### Proposal vs approved persistence` and `### Substrate peer ownership (per ADR-0034)`, since all seven write substrate sections and reason about PROPOSED (`state-reconcile` stays on the full tier for cross-artifact judgment). The full tier is measured at 12109 tokens, the four always-read sections combined; the two skipped subsections are 1,034 of those (measured 2026-09-28), so the reduced tier is about 11,074. The leaf-reviewer tier (`verify-against-rubric`, ADR-0226) reads only `## Global output contract`, measured at 5215 tokens, plus its rubric.
- **Session bootstrap reuse (skip-if-unchanged; v3 wave1 item D):** WHEN this conversation already read the bootstrap sections in an earlier turn still VISIBLE in the context window AND `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` has not changed since, the command MAY skip the re-read and cite the earlier one, emitting one Command transcript line: `Bootstrap: reusing turn <N> read, WOS unchanged`. Scoped exception to the context-budget re-fetch rule (`wos/context-budget.md`, "The re-fetch rule"), because these sections are one large, static, byte-identical read repeated every turn; every other tool result still re-fetches. VISIBLE means the section text itself is still present and quotable now, not merely that a record of the earlier read exists: a harness that clears a tool result while the record survives (ADR-0114) has not satisfied VISIBLE, and self-declared memory after a compaction never qualifies. A stateless-per-turn harness is excluded. The transcript line is mandatory; a silent skip is invalid output.
- **Resolving the spec and `wos/<topic>.md`:** canonical repository FIRST. Otherwise use active-adapter docs: `~/.claude/workflow-docs` (`CLAUDE_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`), `~/.cursor/workflow-docs` (`WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`; project `.cursor/workflow-docs` on project installs), `~/.codex/workflow-docs` (`CODEX_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`), or `<kimi-home>/workflow-docs` (`KIMI_WORKFLOW_DOCS_DIR`). Nonempty overrides win. Kimi home: `KIMI_CODE_HOME`, else existing `~/.kimi-code`, else existing `~/.kimi`, default `~/.kimi-code`. Use one root for both paths; try other adapters if absent or unknown. Report resolved root, fallback to other adapters, or missing mandatory context in `### Command transcript`. Installed snapshots refresh and prune retired topics only on sync.
- Read additional sections only when relevant to this command's role.
- Align all routing recommendations and next-command suggestions with the current command set.
- **Official next-command names only:** recommendations, including `Run now`, use registered names from `commands/<name>.md` or `commands/<name>/SKILL.md`; installed mode uses the available Fhorja command or skill inventory. No invented aliases. `Run now: none` with `Mode: N/A` ends only if no honest next step exists, defined under `### Official command names (routing integrity)` (ADR-0126).
Required inputs:
- project workspace path
- path to token files (`packages/design-system/src/tokens/` or `tokens/*.json`)
- path to foundation docs (`docs/research/foundations/`)
- optional: Figma file URL (for 3-way comparison: Figma vs docs vs code)

Task repository files to update:
- TASK_STATE.md (add audit summary)

Operating rules:
- **Handoff:** end with the adaptive `### Handoff` block per `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` `## Global output contract` (Mode A compact or Mode B full).
- **Step 1: Read token files.** Parse all token definitions from the code (whether .ts exports or DTCG JSON). Build a flat list: `category.group.name = value`.
- **Step 2: Read foundation docs.** Parse all `## Tokens` tables from foundation docs. Build a flat list: `category.group.name = value`.
- **Step 3: Compare code vs docs.**
  - **In code, not in docs**: token exists in code but is not documented. Flag as `undocumented`.
  - **In docs, not in code**: token is documented but missing from code. Flag as `unimplemented`.
  - **Value mismatch**: token exists in both but values differ. Flag as `drift`.
  - **Name mismatch**: similar token exists under a different name (fuzzy match). Flag as `possible rename`.
- **Step 4: (Optional) Compare vs Figma.** If a Figma URL is provided, call `get_variable_defs` and build a third flat list. Cross-reference all three sources. Flag tokens that are in Figma but not in code, in code but not in Figma, or with value mismatches.
- **Step 5: Generate drift report.** Categorize findings by foundation (color, typography, spacing, etc.) and severity:
  - P1: value mismatch (code shows different value than docs or Figma; visual inconsistency)
  - P2: undocumented token (works but not governed) or unimplemented token (documented but not available)
- **Step 6: Suggest fixes.** For each finding, recommend: update the doc, update the code, or create an OPEN_QUESTIONS entry if the correct value is unclear.

Required output:
1. Summary: N tokens in code, M tokens in docs, K tokens in Figma (if checked)
2. Drift findings (undocumented, unimplemented, value mismatch, possible rename)
3. Per-foundation breakdown (color: X findings, spacing: Y findings, etc.)
4. Overall health: in-sync / minor drift / significant drift
5. Recommended next command

### Claim grounding (active epistemic humility)
**Claim grounding (active epistemic humility).** This block governs what you may assert and how you record it. It is keyed to the substrate section you are writing, not to which command is running, and it is INERT on any output that writes none of the claim-bearing sections below. Full contract and rationale: `wos/active-epistemic-humility.md`.

1. When this applies. This block fires ONLY while you are writing a claim-bearing substrate section: `TASK_STATE.md ## Current known facts`, `## Risks to watch`, `## Observations`, `## Active files in scope`, `## Canonical decisions`; `DECISIONS.md ## Locked decisions`; `IMPLEMENTATION_PLAN.md ## Current gaps`, `## Risks and mitigations`; `IMPACT_ANALYSIS.md`; `EXTERNAL_RESEARCH.md`; `REFERENCES.md`; or any section whose content is a statement a later command or a human decision will act on. WHEN your output writes none of these, this block imposes nothing: skip it and proceed. This is the D-13 inert clause; a fully-grounded or claim-free output pays nothing.

2. The unit is the load-bearing claim. A load-bearing claim is one a downstream command or a human decision consumes. A passing aside is not load-bearing; a statement someone will act on is. Apply the rest of this block per load-bearing claim, not per sentence.

3. Ground it or abstain. Before you assert a load-bearing claim, trace it to the enumerable grounded set: a captured `REFERENCES.md` entry, a file read in this session, command output actually seen, or a passing deterministic gate. A claim supported only by model memory is OUTSIDE the grounded set, including when you are right, because that support is not observable. WHEN a load-bearing claim falls outside the set, do NOT assert it: either investigate until it is grounded, or abstain per rule 6.

4. Status records provenance, never confidence. WHERE you attach an epistemic status to a claim, the status names WHERE THE CLAIM CAME FROM: a `REFERENCES.md` entry title, a file path plus line, or the gate output it came from. It SHALL NOT express a degree of certainty. Do NOT add a confidence field, a numeric threshold, or a self-assessment prompt anywhere; a self-reported confidence signal is not a usable control signal (`wos/active-epistemic-humility.md` Part 1.3). A status whose referent slot is empty is read as UNKNOWN, not as a weak yes.

5. Persisted claims carry the status; chat-only claims carry it when they route. Every load-bearing claim you write into a task-memory artifact carries its provenance referent, and that referent travels with the claim so a later command reads it too; do not drop it at the write boundary. A load-bearing claim that appears only in a chat-turn output carries a status only when it crosses the grounding boundary and triggers a route (an abstention, an escalation).

6. Abstain as a routed continuation, never a bare refusal. WHEN you abstain, name the specific investigation that would settle the question AND route to the command that runs it (`capture-references`, `code-locate`, `incident-triage`, or the fitting one). A withholding that stalls the work is invalid output. Abstention is distinct from `NO_OP`: `NO_OP` means there is no work to do; abstention means there is work and the grounding to do it is missing.

7. An unfired gate is not evidence. The absence of a fired check does not mean grounding existed. Do not read silence here as a pass.
### Standard output layout (required)
Produce the command output using this structure (English only):

### Artifact changes
Follow `## Global output contract` in `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` for `APPLIED` / `PROPOSED` / `SKIP` rules. Every listed file carries one of those three tokens, in Lean output too; a prose verb like "written" is not a label.

### Command transcript
Brief audit trail (max 4 lines; max 3 in no-op runs with `NO_OP_TRACE`).

### Handoff
Use the adaptive ending format of `WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md` `## Global output contract`. Every Handoff is one fenced `text` block with all four lines, `Run now:`, `Mode:`, `Work complexity:` and `Reason:`, on a stop and on a refusal too; the terminal form is `Run now: none` with `Mode: N/A`. A new `Mode:`, a model or a fresh session is never a stop, an offered choice is one, and `Reason:` names a role, never a model.
### Definition of done (command output)
- All tokens from code AND docs are accounted for in the comparison.
- Each drift finding has: category, token name, code value, doc value, severity, suggested fix.
- If Figma was included: 3-way comparison is complete.
- If everything is in sync, health says so clearly.
- Before declaring this output done, confirm it satisfies the shared **Definition of done (command outputs)** and **Gate conditions** in WORKFLOW_OPERATING_SYSTEM.md.

Quality bar:
Every finding is grounded in actual code and doc values, not assumptions. If tokens are in sync, say so.

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.