Paths: File paths (shared/,references/,../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root. Ifshared/is missing, fetch files via WebFetch fromhttps://raw.githubusercontent.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/master/skills/{path}.
Risk-Based Value Auditor (L3 Worker)
Type: L3 Worker
Specialized worker calculating Usefulness Score for each test.
Purpose & Scope
- Audit Risk-Based Value (Category 3: Critical Priority)
- Calculate Usefulness Score = Impact x Probability
- Make KEEP/REVIEW/REMOVE decisions
- Calculate compliance score (X/10)
Inputs
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.
Receives contextStore with: tech_stack, testFilesMetadata, codebase_root, output_dir.
Workflow
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/two_layer_detection.md for detection methodology.
- Parse Context: Extract tech stack, Impact/Probability matrices, test file list, output_dir from contextStore
- Calculate Scores (Layer 1): For each test: calculate Usefulness Score = Impact x Probability 2b) Context Analysis (Layer 2 -- MANDATORY): Before finalizing REMOVE decisions, ask:
- Is this a regression guard for a known past bug? -> KEEP regardless of Score - Does this test cover a critical business rule (payment, auth) even if Score<10? -> REVIEW, not REMOVE - Is this the only test covering an edge case in a critical flow? -> KEEP
- Classify Decisions: KEEP (>=15), REVIEW (10-14), REMOVE (<10)
- Collect Findings: Record each REVIEW/REMOVE decision with severity, location (file:line), effort estimate (S/M/L), recommendation
- Calculate Score: Count violations by severity, calculate compliance score (X/10)
- Write Report: Build full markdown report in memory per
shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md, write to{output_dir}/ln-633--global.mdin single Write call - Return Summary: Return minimal summary to coordinator (see Output Format)
Usefulness Score Calculation
Formula
Usefulness Score = Business Impact (1-5) x Failure Probability (1-5)Impact Scoring (1-5)
| Score | Impact | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Critical | Money loss, security breach, data corruption |
| 4 | High | Core flow breaks (checkout, login, registration) |
| 3 | Medium | Feature partially broken, degraded UX |
| 2 | Low | Minor UX issue, cosmetic bug |
| 1 | Trivial | Cosmetic issue, no user impact |
Probability Scoring (1-5)
| Score | Probability | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Very High | Complex algorithm, new technology, many dependencies |
| 4 | High | Multiple dependencies, concurrency, edge cases |
| 3 | Medium | Standard CRUD, framework defaults, established patterns |
| 2 | Low | Simple logic, well-established library, trivial operation |
| 1 | Very Low | Trivial assignment, framework-generated, impossible to break |
Decision Thresholds
| Score Range | Decision | Action |
|---|---|---|
| >=15 | KEEP | Test is valuable, maintain it |
| 10-14 | REVIEW | Consider if E2E already covers this |
| <10 | REMOVE | Delete test, not worth maintenance cost. Exception: regression guards for known bugs -> KEEP. Tests covering critical business rules (payment, auth) -> REVIEW |
Scoring Examples
Example 1: Payment Processing Test
Test: "processPayment calculates discount correctly"
Impact: 5 (Critical -- money calculation)
Probability: 4 (High -- complex algorithm, multiple payment gateways)
Usefulness Score = 5 x 4 = 20
Decision: KEEPExample 2: Email Validation Test
Test: "validateEmail returns true for valid email"
Impact: 2 (Low -- minor UX issue if broken)
Probability: 2 (Low -- simple regex, well-tested library)
Usefulness Score = 2 x 2 = 4
Decision: REMOVE (likely already covered by E2E registration test)Example 3: Login Flow Test
Test: "login with valid credentials returns JWT"
Impact: 4 (High -- core flow)
Probability: 3 (Medium -- standard auth flow)
Usefulness Score = 4 x 3 = 12
Decision: REVIEW (if E2E covers, remove; else keep)Audit Rules
1. Calculate Score for Each Test
Process:
- Read test file, extract test name/description
- Analyze code under test (CUT)
- Determine Impact (1-5)
- Determine Probability (1-5)
- Calculate Usefulness Score
2. Classify Decisions
KEEP (>=15):
- High-value tests (money, security, data integrity)
- Core flows (checkout, login)
- Complex algorithms
REVIEW (10-14):
- Medium-value tests
- Question: "Is this already covered by E2E?"
- If yes -> REMOVE; if no -> KEEP
REMOVE (<10):
- Low-value tests (cosmetic, trivial)
- Framework/library tests
- Duplicates of E2E tests
3. Identify Patterns
Common low-value tests (<10):
- Testing framework behavior
- Testing trivial getters/setters
- Testing constant values
- Testing type annotations
Scoring Algorithm
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/references/audit_scoring.md.
Severity mapping by Usefulness Score:
- Score <5 -> CRITICAL (test wastes significant maintenance effort)
- Score 5-9 -> HIGH (test likely wasteful)
- Score 10-14 -> MEDIUM (review needed)
- Score >=15 -> no issue (KEEP)
Output Format
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md.
Write JSON summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md. In managed mode the caller passes both runId and summaryArtifactPath; in standalone mode the worker generates its own run-scoped artifact path per shared contract.
Write report to {output_dir}/ln-633--global.md with category: "Risk-Based Value" and checks: usefulness_score, remove_candidates, review_candidates.
Return summary per shared/references/audit_summary_contract.md.
When summaryArtifactPath is absent, write the standalone runtime summary under .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/evaluation-worker/{worker}--{identifier}.json and optionally echo the same summary in structured output.
Report written: .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/audit-report/ln-633--global.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)Note: Tests with Usefulness Score >=15 (KEEP) are NOT included in findings -- only issues are reported.
Critical Rules
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.
- Do not auto-fix: Report only
- Effort realism: S = <1h, M = 1-4h, L = >4h
- Score objectivity: Base Impact and Probability on code analysis, not assumptions
- KEEP tests not reported: Only REVIEW and REMOVE decisions appear in findings
- Cross-reference E2E: REVIEW decisions depend on whether E2E already covers the scenario
Definition of Done
MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.
- contextStore parsed successfully (including output_dir)
- Usefulness Score calculated for each test (Impact x Probability)
- Decisions classified: KEEP (>=15), REVIEW (10-14), REMOVE (<10)
- Findings collected with severity, location, effort, recommendation
- Score calculated using penalty algorithm
- Report written to
{output_dir}/ln-633--global.md(atomic single Write call) - Summary written per contract
Reference Files
- Audit output schema:
shared/references/audit_output_schema.md
Version: 3.0.0 Last Updated: 2025-12-23