bridge-audit — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited bridge-audit (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
bridge-audit is the systematic version of "let me re-read the README and see what doesn't match anymore". It runs 12 categorical checks against the current repo state and returns a stratified report. Check 9 only runs with --cross-repo (it fetches sister-repo trunks); Check 10 (agent-identity health), Check 11 (gate-shaped memory), and Check 12 (config-driven CORE skills) always run.
Read the referenced file ONLY when triggered.
| Argument | Effect | Default |
|---|---|---|
(none) | Full audit, all checks | — |
--check <name> | Run only one check (license / skill-tree / protocol-count / renames / xrefs / scopes / routing-sot / typos / agent-identity / memory-gate / config-driven) | all |
--cross-repo | Also clone configured upstreams and compare README/AGENTS for divergence | false |
--strict-oss | When run on an OSS variant: flag hardcoded internal vocabulary (delegates to bridge-leak-check) | false |
--fix | Where unambiguous, apply the suggested fix | false (advisory only) |
--no-history | Skip writing the post-run JSON to work/_learning/audit-history/ | history written by default if learning.enabled |
--no-recurring-scan | Skip the trend-detection step that auto-generates proposals for recurring findings | scan runs by default |
| # | Check | What it compares | Severity hint |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | License consistency | README badge ↔ LICENSE file ↔ README footer ↔ CLAUDE.md license claim ↔ MEMORY mentions | P0 if any disagree |
| 2 | Skill-tree truth | README skill table/tree ↔ AGENTS.md skill table ↔ skills/*/SKILL.md actual | P1 |
| 3 | Standing-order count | "N standing orders" claims ↔ protocols/standing-orders/*.md count (excluding _template.md, README.md) | P1 |
| 4 | Renamed-everywhere | data/renames.yaml old-name greps in tracked content (excluding listed exceptions) | P1 |
| 5 | Cross-reference validity | Markdown [text](path) and ` path ` references resolve to existing files | P2 |
| 6 | Scope coverage | Group A: skills/*/SKILL.md have explicit scope: under metadata: (metadata.scope); .claude/agents/*.md have explicit top-level scope: (P2); rules/*.md scope is REQUIRED + hard-gated by validate-bridge.py (P1). Group B: every identity/{mandants,accounts,personas}/*.yaml + workflow/{contexts,projects}/*.yaml + infra/{remotes,channels}/*.yaml has the required top-level scope: (P1 — schema-enforced, routing-critical) | P1/P2 |
| 7 | Routing-SoT conflicts | Multiple files claim authoritative status for the same routing domain (heuristic: same path appears in multiple "source of truth" tables with different rules) | P2 |
| 8 | Typo lint | Bridge-corpus typo patterns from data/typo-patterns.yaml | P3 |
| 9 | Skill-tree sync coverage (--cross-repo only) | Local skills/*/ scope ↔ each upstream's skills/ directory listing — forward-drops + reverse-leaks | P1 (P0 if outstanding >2 sync windows) |
| 10 | Agent-identity health | identity/agent/SOUL.md present + ≤80 lines / ≤4 KB · IDENTITY.md present · both carry valid frontmatter (schema_version/type/scope/last_updated) | P1 if SOUL.md missing, else P2 |
| 11 | Gate-shaped memory without a rules/ home | Memory files whose body uses gate language (imperative + always/never/immer/nie, or "when X → do Y" routing) but have NO corresponding rule in rules/ (core/bks/user) — a behavioral rule trapped in the private store | P2 |
| 12 | Config-driven CORE skills | scope: core skill files (SKILL.md + references/) that hardcode instance specifics — org/project IDs, tracker queries, persona names, pipeline IDs, absolute instance paths — instead of reading them from bridge-config.yaml / workflow/ / infra/ / identity/ (CLAUDE.md § Generic CORE Skills) | P2 |
User wants to...
├── Full audit → references/checks.md
├── Single check → references/checks.md § the named check
├── Cross-repo divergence → references/checks.md § cross-repo mode
├── OSS-strictness pass → delegate to bridge-leak-check
├── Auto-fix unambiguous findings → references/checks.md § --fix mode
└── Add/extend a rename to track → edit data/renames.yaml directlyBridge Audit — <repo>:<branch> (<timestamp>)
P0 — License (1 finding)
README badge says "MIT", LICENSE file is Apache 2.0, README footer says "Apache 2.0 — see LICENSE"
→ Pick one. Suggested fix: replace LICENSE + footer with MIT.
P1 — Skill tree (3 findings)
README lists `cockpit-office/`, `bks-context/`, `bridge-bks-export/` — none exist in skills/.
Existing but unlisted: `bridge-dashboard`, `bridge-sync`.
→ Update README skill tree.
...
P3 — Typo (1 finding)
docs/structure.md:121 "gepushtdurch" — missing space.
→ Fix.After every audit run, if bridge-config.yaml.learning.enabled is true (default) and --no-history is NOT set, write a structured JSON dump of all findings to work/_learning/audit-history/<YYYY-MM-DD-HHMM>.json. The file format is defined in references/audit-history-format.md.
Why: a single audit run prints findings to the terminal and they're gone. Persisting findings lets /bridge-learn trends detect recurring drift — the same finding appearing in 3+ consecutive runs is a stronger signal than a one-off P2 in a single report.
The JSON write is the LAST step of the audit run, after the human-readable output. It runs even if --fix applied some fixes (the JSON reflects state before fixes, so the next run can show the diff).
Each finding has a fingerprint field — a stable SHA-256 hash of the finding's identity, NOT its prose. Use this normalized payload:
SHA-256 of utf8(
check_name + "\n" +
target_path + "\n" +
normalize(summary)
)Where normalize(s) = lowercase, collapse whitespace, replace absolute paths with repo-relative, strip timestamps, strip line numbers within ±5.
This is what makes "the same finding" stable across runs even if README content shifts.
After writing the history JSON, scan the last 10 history files for fingerprints that appear in ≥3 most-recent consecutive runs. For each recurring fingerprint:
work/_learning/proposals/*.md already has a proposal whosefrontmatter source.fingerprint matches. If yes: skip (proposal exists).
work/_learning/proposals/<YYYY-MM-DD>-audit-recurring-<fp-short>.md using the template in skills/bridge-learn/references/trend-analysis.md.
proposal, P3 finding → P2 proposal). Rationale: recurring P1 is worse than fresh P0 — it's been left.
source.type: audit-recurring, evidence: points to oldest + latesthistory JSON in the streak.
🔁 1 recurring finding auto-generated as proposal:
work/_learning/proposals/2026-05-13-audit-recurring-3f2a8b1c.md
(skill-tree-drift / README ↔ skills/ — 4 consecutive runs)
→ Review at /bridge-learnThis skip-able with --no-recurring-scan for cases where you're audit- debugging the audit itself (avoid feedback loop).
data/renames.yaml, audit catches future drift.data/typo-patterns.yaml.references/checks.md and a row to the table here.rules/<tier>/ (memory stays as dated provenance); see rules/knowledge-growth.md for where behavioral rules belong.see references/audit-history-format.md § Retention.
bridge-leak-check — content-blocklist scan + OSS-strictness pass (legitimate vs leak categorization)bridge-sync — cross-repo propagation of fixes (uses bridge-audit + bridge-leak-check internally)bridge-learn — Phase 2 review surface; consumes the audit-history JSON via trend modetask-close-postmortem — Phase 1 proposal-writer (different source: postmortem instead of audit)work/_learning/README.md — the aggregation layer this writes intorules/operations.md — CORE/USER path disciplinerules/promote-safety.md — content scan rules~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.