Prompt file imported from codepetca/pika (
.codex/prompts/audit.md). Copyright stays with the author.
Run the repo audit for changed files and report every violation found.
Preferred path:
bash .codex/skills/pika-audit/scripts/audit.shFocus on the full result set, not only the first failure. The audit checks the highest-drift patterns: manual API-route error handling, illegal dark: classes, duplicated parseContentField, console.log, and related violations.
Treat the changed-test checks as a path-aware guardrail, not as proof that coverage is complete. They are meant to be cheap, explainable, and usually correct; edge cases still require human judgment.
For changed UI files, use root DESIGN.md as the product contract and
src/ui/README.md as the canonical component/token-usage reference.
Also declare the task risk profile before reporting audit status:
noneworkspace-stateasync-gradingexam-moderuntime-platform
If a non-none risk profile applies, review docs/guidance/dev-flow-risk-checklists.md and report whether the relevant behavioral checks were covered by tests, visual verification, or explicit follow-up.
If the change touches route-keyed async state or classroom/selection switching, also report:
- owner identity named: yes/no
- stale-response regression added: yes/no
If the change is a contract or naming migration, also report:
- migration slice named: yes/no
- new-contract-first reader coverage added: yes/no
- intentional legacy aliases remaining are listed: yes/no
If changed UI files introduce or modify composite widget behavior, also review:
docs/guidance/ui/composite-widget-accessibility.md
Report these explicitly when applicable:
- composite widget accessibility checklist reviewed: yes/no
- semantic/keyboard regression coverage added: yes/no
- focused tests changed for risky server or UI behavior: yes/no
- full validation pass completed: yes/no
If the heuristic seems wrong for a legitimate edge case, say so explicitly and prefer a narrow exception pattern over weakening the rule broadly.