automation-audit-ops

Original：🇺🇸 English
Translated

Evidence-first automation inventory and overlap audit workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants to know which jobs, hooks, connectors, MCP servers, or wrappers are live, broken, redundant, or missing before fixing anything.

2installs
Sourceaffaan-m/everything-claude-code
Added on

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add affaan-m/everything-claude-code automation-audit-ops

Tags

Translated version includes tags in frontmatter
automation-auditecc-workflowinventory-managementautomation-opsredundancy-detection

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Automation Audit Ops

Use this when the user asks what automations are live, which jobs are broken, where overlap exists, or what tooling and connectors are actually doing useful work right now.
This is an audit-first operator skill. The job is to produce an evidence-backed inventory and a keep / merge / cut / fix-next recommendation set before rewriting anything.

Skill Stack

Pull these ECC-native skills into the workflow when relevant:
  • workspace-surface-audit
    for connector, MCP, hook, and app inventory
  • knowledge-ops
    when the audit needs to reconcile live repo truth with durable context
  • github-ops
    when the answer depends on CI, scheduled workflows, issues, or PR automation
  • ecc-tools-cost-audit
    when the real problem is webhook fanout, queued jobs, or billing burn in the sibling app repo
  • research-ops
    when local inventory must be compared against current platform support or public docs
  • verification-loop
    for proving post-fix state instead of relying on assumed recovery

When to Use

  • user asks "what automations do I have", "what is live", "what is broken", or "what overlaps"
  • the task spans cron jobs, GitHub Actions, local hooks, MCP servers, connectors, wrappers, or app integrations
  • the user wants to know what was ported from another agent system and what still needs to be rebuilt inside ECC
  • the workspace has accumulated multiple ways to do the same thing and the user wants one canonical lane

Guardrails

  • start read-only unless the user explicitly asked for fixes
  • separate:
    • configured
    • authenticated
    • recently verified
    • stale or broken
    • missing entirely
  • do not claim a tool is live just because a skill or config references it
  • do not merge or delete overlapping surfaces until the evidence table exists

Workflow

1. Inventory the real surface

Read the current live surface before theorizing:
  • repo hooks and local hook scripts
  • GitHub Actions and scheduled workflows
  • MCP configs and enabled servers
  • connector- or app-backed integrations
  • wrapper scripts and repo-specific automation entrypoints
Group them by surface:
  • local runtime
  • repo CI / automation
  • connected external systems
  • messaging / notifications
  • billing / customer operations
  • research / monitoring

2. Classify each item by live state

For every surfaced automation, mark:
  • configured
  • authenticated
  • recently verified
  • stale or broken
  • missing
Then classify the problem type:
  • active breakage
  • auth outage
  • stale status
  • overlap or redundancy
  • missing capability

3. Trace the proof path

Back every important claim with a concrete source:
  • file path
  • workflow run
  • hook log
  • config entry
  • recent command output
  • exact failure signature
If the current state is ambiguous, say so directly instead of pretending the audit is complete.

4. End with keep / merge / cut / fix-next

For each overlapping or suspect surface, return one call:
  • keep
  • merge
  • cut
  • fix next
The value is in collapsing noisy automation into one canonical ECC lane, not in preserving every historical path.

Output Format

text
CURRENT SURFACE
- automation
- source
- live state
- proof

FINDINGS
- active breakage
- overlap
- stale status
- missing capability

RECOMMENDATION
- keep
- merge
- cut
- fix next

NEXT ECC MOVE
- exact skill / hook / workflow / app lane to strengthen

Pitfalls

  • do not answer from memory when the live inventory can be read
  • do not treat "present in config" as "working"
  • do not fix lower-value redundancy before naming the broken high-signal path
  • do not widen the task into a repo rewrite if the user asked for inventory first

Verification

  • important claims cite a live proof path
  • each surfaced automation is labeled with a clear live-state category
  • the final recommendation distinguishes keep / merge / cut / fix-next