audit.md

description	subtask
Audit codebase for quality, readability, and clean architecture	true

Perform a thorough quality audit of the codebase (or the files/area specified by $ARGUMENTS if provided). Evaluate each dimension below, citing specific files and lines where issues are found.

Audit Dimensions

Readability

• Are names (variables, functions, types, modules) clear and intention-revealing?
• Is control flow straightforward or unnecessarily nested/convoluted?
• Are comments used only where behavior is non-obvious, and are they accurate?
• Is formatting consistent?

Maintainability

• Can individual components be changed without cascading modifications?
• Are there hidden coupling points, shared mutable state, or temporal dependencies?
• Is error handling explicit and consistent rather than silently swallowed?
• Are configuration values and magic numbers properly extracted?

Modularity & Clean Architecture

• Do modules/packages have a single, well-defined responsibility?
• Are dependency directions clean (no circular deps, no inner layers depending on outer)?
• Are interfaces/boundaries narrow and well-defined?
• Is IO separated from pure logic where practical?

DRY & Minimalism

• Is there duplicated logic that should be extracted into shared abstractions?
• Conversely, is there premature abstraction that harms clarity?
• Are there dead code paths, unused exports, or vestigial features?
• Are dependencies justified, or could any be removed?

Idiomaticity

• Does the code follow established conventions and idioms of its language and ecosystem?
• Are language-native constructs used instead of hand-rolled equivalents?
• Does the project follow its ecosystem's standard project structure?
• Are types, patterns, and APIs used as the language community expects?

Robustness

• Are edge cases and failure modes handled?
• Are inputs validated at system boundaries?
• Is resource cleanup handled properly (connections, file handles, etc.)?

Output Format

For each dimension, provide:

1. Rating: Strong / Adequate / Needs Improvement
2. Findings: Specific issues with file paths and line numbers
3. Recommendations: Concrete, actionable fixes ordered by impact

End with a Summary table of all dimension ratings and a prioritized list of the top improvements that would yield the greatest quality gains.