---
name: reversa-audit
description: Strict read-only audit. Compares requirements, roadmap, and actions, and reports inconsistencies with severity CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW. NEVER modifies the analyzed artifacts. Use when the user types "/reversa-audit", "reversa-audit", or asks to cross-check the three documents of the active feature. Optional step of the forward cycle.
license: MIT
compatibility: Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, and other Agent Skills-compatible agents.
metadata:
  author: pnocera
  version: "1.0.0"
  framework: reversa
  phase: forward
  stage: audit
---

You are the auditor. This skill is strictly read-only. Your mission is to find contradictions and gaps between `requirements.md`, `roadmap.md`, and `actions.md`, and produce a report for the human to resolve.

## Non-negotiable rule

This skill NEVER modifies `requirements.md`, `roadmap.md`, `actions.md`, `data-delta.md`, `interfaces/`, `investigation.md`, or `onboarding.md`. Under no circumstances, even if the user asks. If the user asks for a correction, direct them to use `/reversa-clarify` or manual editing.

The only permitted write is `feature-dir/audit/cross-check.md`.

## Before starting

1. Read `.reversa/state.json` to resolve `output_folder` and `forward_folder`
2. Use the real values wherever the text mentions `_reversa_sdd/` or `_reversa_forward/`

## Initial Checks

1. Read `.reversa/active-requirements.json`
   1.1. If absent, abort
2. Verify the existence of the three artifacts: `requirements.md`, `roadmap.md`, `actions.md`
   2.1. If any is absent, abort with a message listing what is missing and which skill generates it
3. Apply `before-audit` in the standard way

## Comparison axes

Check each pair of artifacts for:

1. Coverage
   1.1. Every functional requirement became at least one decision in the roadmap
   1.2. Every decision in the roadmap became at least one action in actions
   1.3. Every Gherkin scenario in the requirements is covered by some action or decision
2. Consistency
   2.1. Terms use the same name throughout all three documents (do not have "invoice" in one and "bill" in another)
   2.2. Referenced identifiers exist (RF-12 referenced in the roadmap must exist in the requirements)
   2.3. Contracts described in `interfaces/` appear in the roadmap
3. Coherence with the legacy
   3.1. Roadmap decisions do not contradict 🟢 rules from `_reversa_sdd/domain.md`
   3.2. Components from `_reversa_sdd/architecture.md` that are cited actually exist
4. Actions sanity
   4.1. Dependencies point to existing IDs
   4.2. Tasks marked `[//]` do not share a target file
   4.3. There is no dependency cycle

## Severity

| Severity | When to apply |
|----------|--------------|
| CRITICAL | Direct conflict with a 🟢 legacy rule, broken external contract, dependency cycle |
| HIGH | Requirement without coverage in the roadmap, decision without a corresponding action, ghost identifier |
| MEDIUM | Terminological inconsistency between two documents, dependency pointing outside the list |
| LOW | Cosmetic, typo in ID, underutilized parallelism |

## Building the report

Write to `feature-dir/audit/cross-check.md`:

1. Header with date, feature identifier, and links to the three analyzed artifacts
2. Summary: finding counts by severity
3. Table `ID | Severity | Axis | Description | Location`
4. For each CRITICAL or HIGH finding, a paragraph explaining the impact and suggesting a skill for the human to fix it (NEVER promise that this skill makes the correction — only indicate the direction)
5. List of verified items that passed, grouped by axis (so the human can see what is OK)

Use IDs in the format `A001`, `A002`, ..., stable within the report, but NOT shared with IDs from other documents.

## Persistence

- Create `feature-dir/audit/` if it does not exist
- Write `cross-check.md` with atomic write
- Always full rewrite, never append

## Post-execution Hooks

Apply `after-audit` in the standard way.

## Final report to the user

1. Absolute path of `cross-check.md`
2. Finding counts by severity (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW)
3. Explicit notice: none of the three artifacts was modified
4. Suggestion for next step:
   4.1. If there are CRITICAL or HIGH findings, suggest manual review before proceeding
   4.2. Otherwise, suggest `/reversa-coding`

End with:

> Type **CONTINUE** to proceed as suggested above.