Skip to article frontmatterSkip to article content
Site not loading correctly?

This may be due to an incorrect BASE_URL configuration. See the MyST Documentation for reference.

Reporting

What an audit hands back. The four-document bundle below is what /audit:issues produces; it is a worked example, not a contract every skill in this plugin has to satisfy. A skill should produce what its subject actually needs — a debt audit’s output is a filing-ready catalog, a parity audit’s is a divergence list, and a small audit may reasonably be a single document. Reach for the bundle where it fits, and don’t manufacture a section to fill a slot.

What every audit owes its reader is much smaller, and is in the last section.

Where it goes

Never into QuantEcon/skills. This repo holds the procedure; the findings belong with the thing audited. In order of preference:

  1. The audited repo’s own notes system — .dev/audits/<date>-<subject>/ or equivalent.

  2. The paired project-* repo, when the audit serves a program rather than a repo (project-translation/reports/ for a translation audit).

  3. A dedicated audit-* repo, per QEP-3, once an audit is recurring and its findings are worth publishing.

Confirm the destination before writing, and name it in the report. Writing the bundle there is the audit’s job; committing or publishing it is not — that is a human step, taken after reading it (doctrine §3). Private inputs stay in private destinations: a project-* repo’s contents must not be summarised into a public one.

The /audit:issues bundle

Four documents, which suit a whole-tracker review because it has an argument to make, a long enumeration to carry, and a graph worth drawing separately. Another audit may need two of these, or none.

01-<subject>-report.md — the argument. Method and evidence base; the snapshot timestamp; portfolio statistics; the findings that change a status, each with its evidence tag; the tiering, tied to the repo’s existing plan; policy alignment; and a time-boxed execution order for whoever acts on it.

02-<subject>-catalog.md — the enumeration. A legend, then a full summary table (item · tier · action · type · priority), then one entry per open item:

Bold header line — the item and its one-line characterisation Status: what is actually true, with evidence and its tag Recommend: the proposed action, and what it depends on Links: related items, in and out of this repo

Close with the verification of the closed set (explicitly thread-complete), and write up anything agreed-but-never-filed as a proposed new item, in a form that could be filed as-is.

03-<subject>-links.md — the graph. Clusters and their anchor items; a concrete table of missing links worth adding; true orphans and over-dense hubs; and the external cross-link registry (sibling repos, program and meta issues, evidence PRs). This one is the most tracker-specific of the four — an audit whose subject has no interesting link structure should simply not produce it.

README.md — the index. Headline numbers, what each document is for, and the coverage statement.

Where a later audit does reuse this shape, keeping the names and the entry format identical is worth something: a reader who has read one bundle can read the next, and two audits of the same subject diff mechanically (doctrine rule 7). That is a reason to converge where the shape fits, not a reason to force it.

What any audit owes its reader

Short list, and this part is not advisory — each item is what keeps a long report checkable by someone who will not re-run it.