Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

ln-623-architecture-auditor(ln 623 建筑审核员)

用于辅助安全审计、权限检查、凭据风险、认证流程和常见漏洞排查。它适合让 Agent 梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,涉及密钥、令牌、用户数据或生产系统时,应先确认最小权限、脱敏方式和操作边界。

ln-623-architecture-auditor 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为调用外部服务;许可证为 MIT,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 69,522。

总安装 218周安装 9GitHub Stars 441下载 71核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ln-623-architecture-auditor(ln 623 建筑审核员)
来源仓库:https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/ln-623-architecture-auditor
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-623-architecture-auditor
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-623-architecture-auditor

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于安全审计、权限检查和常见漏洞排查,适合梳理敏感配置和鉴权逻辑。适用于需要分析凭据风险或生成安全复核清单的场景。使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,需先确认最小权限和操作边界。涉及密钥、令牌或用户数据时应脱敏处理,避免影响生产系统。安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态,确保不会触发不必要的网络或文件操作。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ln-623-architecture-auditor

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-6…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要调用外部服务,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

ln-623-architecture-auditor 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-623-archite…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ln-623-architecture-auditor 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

ln-623-architecture-auditor 需要什么权限?

权限级别是调用外部服务。该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

ln-623-architecture-auditor 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

ln-623-architecture-auditor 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 218 次,近一周安装 9 次,下载 71 次,GitHub 441 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

ln-623-architecture-auditor 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
ln-623-architecture-auditor

ln 623 建筑审核员 · 本页

218441调用外部服务MIT未收录

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Architecture & Design Auditor (L3 Worker)

Specialized worker auditing architecture principles and design patterns.

Purpose & Scope

  • Worker in ln-620 coordinator pipeline - invoked by ln-620-codebase-auditor
  • Audit architecture and design (Categories 3+4: High Priority)
  • Check DRY/KISS/YAGNI violations, layer breaks, TODO/FIXME, workarounds, error handling
  • Return structured findings with severity, location, effort, recommendations
  • Calculate compliance score (X/10) for Architecture & Design category

Inputs (from Coordinator)

Receives contextStore with:

  • tech_stack - detected tech stack (languages, frameworks)
  • best_practices - researched best practices from MCP
  • principles - project-specific principles from docs/principles.md
  • codebase_root - root path of codebase

Domain-aware fields (NEW):

  • domain_mode: "domain-aware" | "global" (optional, defaults to "global")
  • current_domain: {name, path} when domain_mode="domain-aware"

Example contextStore (domain-aware):

{
  "tech_stack": {...},
  "best_practices": {...},
  "principles": {...},
  "codebase_root": "/project",
  "domain_mode": "domain-aware",
  "current_domain": {
    "name": "users",
    "path": "src/users"
  }
}

Workflow

  1. Parse context from contextStore

- Extract tech_stack, best_practices, principles - Determine scan_path (NEW): IF domain_mode == "domain-aware": scan_path = codebase_root + "/" + current_domain.path domain_name = current_domain.name ELSE: scan_path = codebase_root domain_name = null

  1. Scan codebase for violations

- All Grep/Glob patterns use scan_path (not codebase_root) - Example: Grep(pattern="TODO", path=scan_path)

  1. Collect findings with severity, location, effort, recommendation

- Tag each finding with domain: domain_name (if domain-aware)

  1. Calculate score using penalty algorithm
  2. Return JSON result to coordinator

- Include domain and scan_path fields (if domain-aware)

Audit Rules (Priority: HIGH)

1. DRY Violations (Don't Repeat Yourself)

What: Duplicated logic, constants, or code blocks across files

Detection Categories:

1.1. Identical Code Duplication
  • Search for identical functions (use AST comparison or text similarity)
  • Find repeated constants: same value defined in multiple files
  • Detect copy-pasted code blocks (>10 lines identical)

Severity:

  • HIGH: Critical business logic duplicated (payment, auth)
  • MEDIUM: Utility functions duplicated
  • LOW: Simple constants duplicated (<5 occurrences)
1.2. Duplicated Validation Logic

What: Same validation patterns repeated across validators/controllers

Detection:

  • Email validation: /@.*\./ regex patterns in multiple files
  • Password validation: /.{8,}/, strength checks repeated
  • Phone validation: phone number regex duplicated
  • Common patterns: isValid*, validate*, check* functions with similar logic

Severity:

  • HIGH: Auth/payment validation duplicated (inconsistency risk)
  • MEDIUM: User input validation duplicated (3+ occurrences)
  • LOW: Simple format checks duplicated (<3 occurrences)

Recommendation: Extract to shared validators module (validators/common.ts)

Effort: M (extract validators, update imports)

1.3. Repeated Error Messages

What: Hardcoded error messages instead of centralized error catalog

Detection:

  • Grep for hardcoded strings in throw new Error("..."), res.status(400).json({error: "..."})
  • Find repeated messages: "User not found", "Invalid credentials", "Unauthorized access"
  • Check for missing error constants file: errors.ts, error-messages.ts, constants/errors.ts

Severity:

  • MEDIUM: Critical error messages hardcoded (auth, payment) - inconsistency risk
  • MEDIUM: No centralized error messages file
  • LOW: Same error message in <3 places

Recommendation:

  • Create central error messages file (constants/error-messages.ts)
  • Define error catalog: const ERRORS = {USER_NOT_FOUND: "User not found",...}
  • Replace hardcoded strings with constants: throw new Error(ERRORS.USER_NOT_FOUND)

Effort: M (create error catalog, replace hardcoded strings)

1.4. Similar Code Patterns (>80% Similarity)

What: Code with similar logic but different variable names/structure

Detection:

  • Use fuzzy matching/similarity algorithms (Levenshtein distance, Jaccard similarity)
  • Compare function bodies ignoring variable names
  • Threshold: >80% similarity = potential duplication

Example:

// File 1
function processUser(user) { return user.name.toUpperCase(); }

// File 2
function formatUserName(u) { return u.name.toUpperCase(); }
// ✅ Same logic, different names - DETECTED

Severity:

  • MEDIUM: Similar business logic (>80% similarity) in critical paths
  • LOW: Similar utility functions (<3 occurrences)

Recommendation: Extract common logic, create shared helper function

Effort: M (refactor to shared module)

1.5. Duplicated SQL Queries

What: Same SQL queries/ORM calls in different controllers/services

Detection:

  • Find repeated raw SQL strings: SELECT * FROM users WHERE id =?
  • ORM duplicates: User.findOne({where: {email}}) in multiple files
  • Grep for common patterns: SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE with similar structure

Severity:

  • HIGH: Critical queries duplicated (payment, auth)
  • MEDIUM: Common queries duplicated (3+ occurrences)
  • LOW: Simple queries duplicated (<3 occurrences)

Recommendation: Extract to Repository layer, create query methods

Effort: M (create repository methods, update callers)

1.6. Copy-Pasted Tests

What: Test files with identical structure (arrange-act-assert duplicated)

Detection:

  • Find tests with >80% similar setup/teardown
  • Repeated test data: same fixtures defined in multiple test files
  • Pattern: beforeEach, afterEach with identical code

Severity:

  • MEDIUM: Test setup duplicated in 5+ files
  • LOW: Similar test utilities duplicated (<5 files)

Recommendation: Extract to test helpers (tests/helpers/*), use shared fixtures

Effort: M (create test utilities, refactor tests)

1.7. Repeated API Response Structures

What: Duplicated response objects instead of shared DTOs

Detection:

  • Find repeated object structures in API responses: return {id: user.id, name: user.name, email: user.email}
  • Check for missing DTOs folder: dtos/, responses/, models/
  • Grep for common patterns: return {...} in controllers

Severity:

  • MEDIUM: Response structures duplicated in 5+ endpoints (inconsistency risk)
  • LOW: Simple response objects duplicated (<5 endpoints)

Recommendation: Create DTOs/Response classes, use serializers

Effort: M (create DTOs, update endpoints)


Overall Recommendation for DRY: Extract to shared module, create utility function, centralize constants/messages/validators/DTOs

Overall Effort: M (refactor + update imports, typically 1-4 hours per duplication type)

2. KISS Violations (Keep It Simple, Stupid)

What: Over-engineered abstractions, unnecessary complexity

Detection:

  • Abstract classes with single implementation
  • Factory patterns for 2 objects
  • Deep inheritance (>3 levels)
  • Generic types with excessive constraints

Severity:

  • HIGH: Abstraction prevents understanding core logic
  • MEDIUM: Unnecessary pattern (factory for 2 types)
  • LOW: Over-generic types (acceptable tradeoff)

Recommendation: Remove abstraction, inline implementation, flatten hierarchy

Effort: L (requires careful refactoring)

3. YAGNI Violations (You Aren't Gonna Need It)

What: Unused extensibility, dead feature flags, premature optimization

Detection:

  • Feature flags that are always true/false
  • Abstract methods never overridden
  • Config options never used
  • Interfaces with single implementation (no plans for more)

Severity:

  • MEDIUM: Unused extensibility points adding complexity
  • LOW: Dead feature flags (cleanup needed)

Recommendation: Remove unused code, simplify interfaces

Effort: M (verify no future use, then delete)

4. Layer Boundary Breaks

What: Architectural layers violated (UI calling DB directly, Controller bypassing Service, etc.)

Detection:

  • Grep for direct DB calls in UI/presentation layer
  • Grep for Repository imports in Controllers:

- Pattern: import.*Repository.*from in files matching *Controller.*, *controller.*, *Controller.ts, *Controller.js, *controller.py

  • Check for concrete class dependencies instead of interfaces/abstractions
  • Verify separation: Controller → Service → Repository → DB (Clean Architecture dependency rule)

Severity:

  • CRITICAL: UI directly accessing database (bypass all layers)
  • CRITICAL: Controller directly using Repository (skip Service layer)
  • HIGH: Business logic in presentation layer
  • HIGH: Dependency on concrete classes instead of interfaces (violates Dependency Inversion Principle)
  • MEDIUM: Tight coupling between layers

Recommendation:

  • Add service layer between Controller and Repository
  • Use Dependency Inversion Principle: depend on interfaces/abstractions, not concrete implementations
  • Refactor to proper layering (Controller → Service → Repository → DB)

Effort: L (architectural refactor)

5. TODO/FIXME/HACK Comments

What: Unfinished work, temporary solutions

Detection:

  • Grep for TODO, FIXME, HACK, XXX, OPTIMIZE
  • Check age (git blame) - old TODOs are higher severity

Severity:

  • HIGH: TODO in critical path (auth, payment) >6 months old
  • MEDIUM: FIXME/HACK with explanation
  • LOW: Recent TODO (<1 month) with plan

Recommendation: Complete TODO, remove HACK, refactor workaround

Effort: Varies (S for simple TODO, L for architectural HACK)

6. Missing Error Handling

What: Critical paths without try-catch, error propagation

Detection:

  • Find async functions without error handling
  • Check API routes without error middleware
  • Verify database calls have error handling

Severity:

  • CRITICAL: Payment/auth without error handling
  • HIGH: User-facing operations without error handling
  • MEDIUM: Internal operations without error handling

Recommendation: Add try-catch, implement error middleware, propagate errors properly

Effort: M (add error handling logic)

7. Centralized Error Handling

What: Errors handled inconsistently across different contexts (web requests, cron jobs, background tasks)

Detection:

  • Search for centralized error handler class/module: ErrorHandler, errorHandler, error-handler.ts/js/py
  • Check if error middleware delegates to handler: errorHandler.handleError(err) or similar
  • Verify all async routes use promises or async/await (Express 5+ auto-catches rejections)
  • Check for error transformation (sanitize stack traces for users in production)
  • Anti-pattern check: Look for process.on("uncaughtException") usage (BAD PRACTICE per Express docs)

Severity:

  • HIGH: No centralized error handler (errors handled inconsistently in multiple places)
  • HIGH: Using uncaughtException listener instead of proper error propagation (Express anti-pattern)
  • MEDIUM: Error middleware handles errors directly (doesn't delegate to central handler)
  • MEDIUM: Async routes without proper error handling (not using promises/async-await)
  • LOW: Stack traces exposed in production responses (security/UX issue)

Recommendation:

  • Create single ErrorHandler class/module for ALL error contexts
  • Middleware should only catch and forward to ErrorHandler (delegate pattern)
  • Use async/await for async routes (framework auto-forwards errors)
  • Transform errors for users: hide sensitive details (stack traces, internal paths) in production
  • DO NOT use uncaughtException listeners - use process managers (PM2, systemd) for restart instead
  • For unhandled rejections: log and restart process (use supervisor, not inline handler)

Effort: M-L (create error handler, refactor existing middleware)

8. Dependency Injection / Centralized Init

What: Direct imports/instantiation instead of dependency injection, scattered initialization

Detection:

  • Check for DI container usage:

- Node.js: inversify, awilix, tsyringe, typedi packages - Python: dependency_injector, injector packages - Java: Spring @Autowired, @Inject annotations - .NET: Built-in DI in ASP.NET Core, IServiceCollection

  • Grep for direct instantiations in business logic: new SomeService(), new SomeRepository()
  • Check for centralized Init/Bootstrap module: bootstrap.ts, init.py, Startup.cs, app.module.ts
  • Verify controllers/services receive dependencies via constructor/parameters, not direct imports

Severity:

  • MEDIUM: No DI container (hard to test, tight coupling, difficult to swap implementations)
  • MEDIUM: Direct instantiation in business logic (new Service() in controllers/services)
  • LOW: Mixed DI and direct imports (inconsistent pattern)

Recommendation:

  • Use DI container for dependency management (Inversify, Awilix, Spring, built-in.NET DI)
  • Centralize initialization in Init/Bootstrap module
  • Inject dependencies via constructor/parameters (dependency injection pattern)
  • Never use direct instantiation for business logic classes (only for DTOs, value objects)

Effort: L (refactor to DI pattern, add container, update all instantiations)

9. Missing Best Practices Guide

What: No architecture/design best practices documentation for developers

Detection:

  • Check for architecture guide files:

- docs/architecture.md, docs/best-practices.md, docs/design-patterns.md - ARCHITECTURE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md (architecture section)

  • Verify content includes: layering rules, error handling patterns, DI usage, coding conventions

Severity:

  • LOW: No architecture guide (harder for new developers to understand patterns and conventions)

Recommendation:

  • Create docs/architecture.md with project-specific patterns:

- Document layering: Controller→Service→Repository→DB - Error handling: centralized ErrorHandler pattern - Dependency Injection: how to add new services/repositories - Coding conventions: naming, file organization, imports

  • Include examples from existing codebase
  • Keep framework-agnostic (principles, not specific implementations)

Effort: S (create markdown file, ~1-2 hours documentation)

Scoring Algorithm

penalty = (critical * 2.0) + (high * 1.0) + (medium * 0.5) + (low * 0.2)
score = max(0, 10 - penalty)

Output Format

Return JSON to coordinator:

Global mode output:

{
  "category": "Architecture & Design",
  "score": 6,
  "total_issues": 12,
  "critical": 2,
  "high": 4,
  "medium": 4,
  "low": 2,
  "findings": [...]
}

Domain-aware mode output (NEW):

{
  "category": "Architecture & Design",
  "score": 6,
  "domain": "users",
  "scan_path": "src/users",
  "total_issues": 12,
  "critical": 2,
  "high": 4,
  "medium": 4,
  "low": 2,
  "findings": [
    {
      "severity": "CRITICAL",
      "location": "src/users/controllers/UserController.ts:45",
      "issue": "Controller directly uses Repository (layer boundary break)",
      "principle": "Layer Separation (Clean Architecture)",
      "recommendation": "Create UserService, inject into controller",
      "effort": "L",
      "domain": "users"
    },
    {
      "severity": "HIGH",
      "location": "src/users/services/UserService.ts:45",
      "issue": "DRY violation - duplicate validation logic",
      "principle": "DRY Principle",
      "recommendation": "Extract to shared validators module",
      "effort": "M",
      "domain": "users"
    }
  ]
}

Critical Rules

  • Do not auto-fix: Report only
  • Domain-aware scanning: If domain_mode="domain-aware", scan ONLY scan_path (not entire codebase)
  • Tag findings: Include domain field in each finding when domain-aware
  • Context-aware: Use project's principles.md to define what's acceptable
  • Age matters: Old TODOs are higher severity than recent ones
  • Effort realism: S = <1h, M = 1-4h, L = >4h

Definition of Done

  • contextStore parsed (including domain_mode and current_domain)
  • scan_path determined (domain path or codebase root)
  • All 9 checks completed (scoped to scan_path):

- DRY (7 subcategories), KISS, YAGNI, Layer Breaks, TODOs, Error Handling, Centralized Errors, DI/Init, Best Practices Guide

  • Findings collected with severity, location, effort, recommendation, domain
  • Score calculated
  • JSON returned to coordinator with domain metadata

Reference Files


Version: 4.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-23

平台分布

Claude Code

30.01%
按下载量换算21

OpenCode

21.41%
按下载量换算15

Gemini CLI

15.09%
按下载量换算11

Cursor

11.47%
按下载量换算8

Codex

7.14%
按下载量换算5

Antigravity

3.29%
按下载量换算2

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

调用外部服务

该 Skill 可能调用第三方服务、云服务或外部模型 API,使用前需要确认账号、额度、数据发送范围和服务条款。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

继续浏览同类 Skills