Skip to content
Back to skills

Auditing Progress

ASecurity

Use when an iteration has just finished and you need to verify behavior evidence quality in three tiers — deep evidence for current stories, impacted behavior for touched scenarios, and sentinel corpus for high-value regression detection.

  • 177 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added June 9, 2026
ai-agents

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 2 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned June 9, 2026

npx -y skills add prime-radiant-inc/iterative-development --skill auditing-progress --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Auditing Progress?

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

Security grade badge for Auditing Progress
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/prime-radiant-inc-auditing-progress/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/prime-radiant-inc-auditing-progress)

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: auditing-progress
description: Use when an iteration has just finished and you need to verify behavior evidence quality in three tiers — deep evidence for current stories, impacted behavior for touched scenarios, and sentinel corpus for high-value regression detection.
---

# Auditing Progress

## Overview

Runs after every iteration as part of the planning cycle. Verifies behavior evidence quality in three tiers using **parallel adversarial review (PAR)** — two paired auditor subagents evaluate the same work in parallel with competitive framing.

The audit answers: "Does durable, reusable evidence exist at the correct seam for every externally observable behavior this iteration touched?"

## When to Use

Invoked by `iterative-development` after every `running-an-iteration` call, before picking the next iteration.

## Audit Process

### 1. Partition the audit into three tiers

Read the per-epic requirement files in `docs/superpowers/iterations/requirements/`, `docs/superpowers/iterations/behavior-scenarios.md`, and `docs/superpowers/iterations/behavior-corpus.md`:

- **Tier 1 — Deep evidence:** stories marked `done:ITER-<current>` and scenarios added or updated in this iteration. Audit every AC and its proof obligation thoroughly.
- **Tier 2 — Impacted behavior:** all existing scenarios whose owning stories had code changes in this iteration (even if those stories were completed in earlier iterations). Verify the scenarios still pass.
- **Tier 3 — Sentinel corpus:** all scenarios with run cadence `sentinel` in the behavior corpus. Compare against the pre-iteration baseline from `running-an-iteration` step 3.

### 2. Dispatch paired auditor subagents (PAR)

Following the PAR methodology in `skills/shared/parallel-adversarial-review.md`:

1. Build the auditor prompt using `auditor-subagent-prompt.md`. Include ALL THREE tiers:
   - Tier 1: full story cards with proof obligations + new/changed scenario cards
   - Tier 2: impacted scenario cards + their current test results
   - Tier 3: sentinel scenario IDs + baseline results + current results
2. Wrap in competitive framing from `skills/shared/par-reviewer-wrapper.md`
3. Dispatch TWO auditor subagents in parallel
4. Wait for both to return

### 3. Aggregate findings

Following PAR aggregation rules:
- Same finding from both auditors → one finding, high confidence
- Finding from only one auditor → separate finding, still actionable
- Severity disagreement → take the more severe assessment, always fix it

### 4. Process results

- **If gaps found** (any AC fails, evidence is too weak, sentinel regression detected):
  - For AC failures: append gap stories to `requirements/` (status `pending`) or flip existing stories back from `done` to `pending`
  - For weak evidence: create evidence-improvement stories (add scenario, strengthen seam)
  - For sentinel regressions: create regression-fix stories with CRITICAL priority
  - Revise `roadmap.md` to add a follow-up iteration for the gaps
- **If clean** (all tiers pass, evidence is adequate):
  - The iteration is confirmed done
  - Return clean signal to the orchestrator

### 5. Return control

Return the audit result (clean or gaps) to the orchestrator. The orchestrator decides whether to loop or terminate.

## Quick Reference

| Tier | What it checks | Failure means |
|---|---|---|
| Deep evidence | Every AC + proof obligation for current iteration | Story not done, evidence too weak |
| Impacted behavior | Scenarios whose surfaces were touched | Stale or broken scenario |
| Sentinel corpus | High-value journey scenarios | Regression in previously-working behavior |

| Reads | Writes | Dispatches |
|---|---|---|
| `requirements/`, `behavior-scenarios.md`, `behavior-corpus.md`, product code/tests | `requirements/` (gaps), `roadmap.md` (new iteration) if gaps, `behavior-scenarios.md` (stale flags) | **Two** auditor subagents in parallel (PAR) |

## References

- `skills/shared/parallel-adversarial-review.md` — PAR methodology
- `skills/shared/par-reviewer-wrapper.md` — competitive framing wrapper
- `skills/shared/behavior-evidence-formats.md` — scenario and proof obligation formats
- `auditor-subagent-prompt.md` — auditor-specific prompt template

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md4.1 KB
  • auditor-subagent-prompt.md3.5 KB

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.