---

name: vibe-code-auditor description: Audit AI-generated or rapidly-prototyped code for structural flaws, hallucinated imports, fragility, and production risks before committing or handing off. Use when code was generated with AI assistance, evolved without deliberate architecture, or a prototype needs productionizing. allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash metadata: triggers: vibe code, AI-generated code, prototype review, production ready, hallucinated imports, code audit, rapid iteration, is this production ready, audit this code related-skills: code-reviewer, security-reviewer, architect-review, systematic-debugging, verification-before-completion domain: quality role: specialist scope: review output-format: report last-reviewed: "2026-03-15"

Iron Law

NO FINDINGS WITHOUT CODE EVIDENCE — every issue must cite file and line number (or structural location for snippets). Do not speculate about code you have not read.

Vibe Code Auditor

Overview

AI-generated and rapidly-prototyped code that "works" may contain hallucinated imports, missing library versions, architectural fragility, and production risks that are invisible during casual review.

This skill is the pre-commit gate for AI-assisted code — it runs before code-reviewer and security-reviewer to catch AI-specific artifacts first.

Core distinction from code-reviewer: code-reviewer assumes production-intent code. This skill assumes prototype/AI-generated code and specifically checks for hallucinated APIs and prototype-to-production gaps.

When to Use

• Code was generated or heavily assisted by AI tools
• The system evolved without a deliberate architecture ("vibe coded")
• A prototype needs to be productionized
• Code works but feels fragile or inconsistent
• You suspect hallucinated imports or API mismatches
• Preparing a project for long-term maintenance or team handoff

Pre-Audit Checklist

Before beginning, confirm:

• Input received: Source code or files are present
• Scope defined: snippet / single file / multi-file system
• Context noted: State assumptions if context is missing (e.g., "Assuming NestJS web API")

Quick Scan (first 60 seconds):

• Count files and lines of code
• Identify language(s) and framework(s)
• Spot obvious red flags: hardcoded secrets, bare excepts, TODOs, commented-out code
• Note entry points and data flow direction

Pattern Recognition Shortcuts:

Pattern	Likely Issue	Quick Check
eval(), exec(), os.system()	Security critical	Search for these strings
except: or except Exception:	Silent failures	Grep for bare excepts
password, secret, key, token in code	Hardcoded credentials	Search + check if literal string
if DEBUG, debug=True	Insecure defaults	Check config blocks
Functions >50 lines	Maintainability risk	Count lines per function
Nested if >3 levels	Complexity hotspot	Visual scan
No tests in repo	Quality gap	Look for test_ / *.spec.ts files
Direct SQL string concat	SQL injection	Search for f"SELECT or + "SELECT
HTTP client calls without timeout	Production risk	Check fetch/axios/requests calls
while True without break	Unbounded loop	Search for infinite loops

Audit Dimensions

Evaluate across all 7 dimensions. For each finding: dimension, title, location (file:line), severity, explanation, recommendation.

1. Architecture & Design

• Separation of concerns violations (business logic inside route handlers)
• God objects or monolithic modules
• Tight coupling with no abstraction boundary
• Missing or blurred system boundaries (DB queries scattered across layers)
• Circular dependencies or import cycles

2. Consistency & Maintainability

• Naming inconsistencies (get_user vs fetchUser vs retrieveUserData)
• Mixed paradigms without justification
• Copy-paste logic (3+ repetitions = extract)
• Magic numbers or strings without constants

3. Robustness & Error Handling

• Missing input validation on entry points
• Bare except or catch-all handlers that swallow failures silently
• Unhandled edge cases (empty collections, null/None, zero values)
• No retry logic for transient failures
• Missing timeouts on blocking operations

4. Production Risks

• Hardcoded configuration values (URLs, credentials, timeouts)
• Missing structured logging or observability hooks
• N+1 query patterns or unbounded loops
• Blocking I/O in async contexts
• No health checks or readiness endpoints

5. Security & Safety

• Unsanitized user input to databases, shells, or eval
• Credentials, API keys, or tokens in source code
• Insecure defaults (DEBUG=True, permissive CORS)
• SQL injection (string concatenation in queries)
• Missing authentication/authorization checks

6. Dead or Hallucinated Code (AI-specific — unique to this skill)

• Imports that do not exist in the declared dependencies
• References to APIs, methods, or fields that do not exist in the library version used
• Type annotations that contradict actual usage
• Comments describing behavior inconsistent with the code
• Unreachable code blocks (after return, raise, or break in all paths)
• Feature flags or conditionals that are always true/false

7. Technical Debt Hotspots

• Deep nesting (>3-4 levels)
• Boolean flag parameters controlling function behavior
• Functions with 5+ parameters without a config object
• Missing type hints for complex functions
• No documentation for public APIs

Calibration by Code Size

Input size	Focus
Snippet (<100 lines)	Security, robustness, obvious bugs only
Single file (100-500 lines)	Add architecture and maintainability
Multi-file system (500+ lines)	Full audit across all 7 dimensions

Output Format

Produce the audit report in this exact structure. If a section has no findings, write "None identified."

Audit Report

Input: [file name(s) or "code snippet"] Assumptions: [list any assumptions about context or environment] Quick Stats: [X files, Y lines of code, Z language/framework]

Executive Summary

In 3-5 bullets:

- [CRITICAL/HIGH] Most severe issue
- [CRITICAL/HIGH] Second most severe issue
- [MEDIUM] Notable pattern
- Overall: Deployable as-is / Needs fixes / Requires major rework

Critical Issues (Must Fix Before Production)

For each issue:

[CRITICAL] Short descriptive title
Location: filename.ts, line 42
Dimension: Architecture / Security / Robustness / etc.
Problem: What is wrong and why it is dangerous.
Fix: Minimum change required.
Code Fix (if applicable):
  // Before: ...
  // After: ...

High-Risk Issues

Same format as Critical, tag [HIGH].

Maintainability Problems

Same format, tag [MEDIUM] or [LOW].

Production Readiness Score

Score: XX / 100

Scoring algorithm:

Start at 100
CRITICAL issue: -15 (security CRITICAL: -20)
HIGH issue: -8
MEDIUM issue: -3
Pervasive pattern (3+ similar issues): -5 additional
Floor: 0, Ceiling: 100

Range	Meaning
0-30	Not deployable
31-50	High risk — significant rework required
51-70	Low-stakes / internal only with close monitoring
71-85	Production-viable with targeted fixes
86-100	Production-ready

Refactoring Priorities

Top 3-5 changes in impact order:

1. [P1 - Blocker] Fix title — addresses [CRITICAL #1] — effort: S/M/L — prevents [specific failure]
2. [P2 - Blocker] Fix title — addresses [CRITICAL #2] — effort: S/M/L
3. [P3 - High] Fix title — addresses [HIGH #1] — effort: S/M/L

Effort: S = <1 day, M = 1-3 days, L = >3 days

Behavior Rules

• Ground every finding in actual code. Do not speculate.
• Report file:line for every finding. For snippets, describe structurally (e.g., "inside processPayment()").
• Do not flag style preferences unless they cause ambiguity or bugs.
• Flag unconfirmed security issues as "unconfirmed — verify" rather than omitting or overstating.

Post-Audit Next Steps

Finding Type	Next Skill
Deep security vulnerabilities found	security-reviewer — full OWASP deep-dive
Architectural anti-patterns found	architect-review — distributed systems assessment
Tests missing across codebase	test-driven-development — Red-Green-Refactor cycle
Duplicate logic patterns found	dedup-code-agent — systematic deduplication