mcpField
M
meta-audit

meta-audit

github.com/laurigatesAgent workflows5961 installsUpdated 1d ago
Repository

About meta-audit

meta-audit is a read-only skill for reviewing Claude agent definitions and project settings. It checks configuration completeness, tool permissions, security boundaries, naming, and model assignments.

Key features

  1. 01Validate agent frontmatter
  2. 02Review tool permissions and privilege boundaries
  3. 03Check naming and model consistency
  4. 04Inspect settings.local.json restrictions
  5. 05Generate findings and action items

Use cases

  1. 01Audit agent definitions before committing
  2. 02Find excessive permissions across project agents
  3. 03Check configuration consistency across agents

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/laurigates/claude-plugins --skill meta-audit

After installing, type/meta-auditin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

meta-audit

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when...Use custom-agent-definitions instead when...
Reviewing existing .claude/agents/*.md files for missing frontmatter, overprivileged tools, or wrong modelsAuthoring a new agent definition file from scratch
Validating read-only vs write-enabled agent privilege boundaries before committingConfiguring a single agent's model, allowed-tools, or context: fork
Auditing agents across an entire project for naming and security consistencyCopying or generalising another project's agents (use meta-assimilate)

Context

  • Agent definitions: !find . -path '*/.claude/agents/*' -name "*.md" -not -name "settings*"
  • Settings file: !find . -path '*/.claude/agents/*' -maxdepth 3 -name "settings.local.json" -type f

Your task

1. Discovery Phase
  • Use Glob to find all agent definition files in .claude/agents/
  • Read each agent file to extract frontmatter and configuration
  • Identify the settings.local.json for permission overrides
2. Frontmatter Validation

For each agent, verify required fields are present:

  • ✅ name: Agent identifier (must match filename)
  • ✅ model: an alias (opus, fable, sonnet, haiku, inherit) or a current full ID (e.g. claude-fable-5-1); a dated ID from a superseded generation (claude-opus-4-7, claude-sonnet-4-6) is a finding — recommend the alias unless the pin is deliberate
  • ℹ️ effort: optional low…max (overrides the session effort while the agent runs; default inherits); recommend low where the body describes mechanical work
  • ✅ color: Hex color code for UI (e.g., "#E53E3E")
  • ✅ description: Clear usage guidance with "Use proactively when..."
  • ✅ tools: Tool list or "All" for full access

Flag issues:

  • Missing required fields
  • Mismatched name vs filename
  • Invalid model names
  • Malformed color codes
3. Tool Assignment Analysis

Evaluate tool assignments for security and appropriateness:

Read-only agents (should NOT have write access):

  • research-documentation
  • code-analysis (read only)
  • code-review (read + LSP only)
  • security-audit (read + LSP + Bash for scanning)

Write-enabled agents (appropriate write access):

  • code-refactoring (Edit, MultiEdit)
  • documentation (Write, MultiEdit)
  • cicd-pipelines (Write, Edit, GitHub)

Special privileges (validate necessity):

  • Bash access (security-audit, system-debugging, cicd-pipelines, test-architecture)
  • GitHub access (cicd-pipelines, commit-review)
  • Zen MCP access (system-debugging only)
  • All tools access (should be rare, validate justification)

LSP tool assignments (language-specific):

  • Verify LSP tools match agent's language focus
  • security-audit should have broad LSP coverage (6+ servers)
  • code-review should have multi-language LSP support
  • code-analysis should have appropriate LSP access
4. Security Assessment

Check for potential security issues:

Overprivileged agents:

  • Agents with "All" tools without clear justification
  • Read-only agents with write/edit capabilities
  • Unnecessary Bash or GitHub access
  • Research agents with modification permissions

Missing restrictions:

  • settings.local.json should have deny rules for destructive operations
  • Allow list should be minimal and specific
  • No wildcard tool access unless justified

Privilege escalation risks:

  • Agents that can modify other agent configs
  • Agents with both read and execute permissions
  • Cross-agent permission leakage
5. Consistency Checks

Validate configuration consistency:

Naming conventions:

  • Agent names use kebab-case
  • Filenames match agent names
  • Descriptions follow consistent format

Model assignments:

  • All agents use appropriate Claude models
  • No deprecated model references
  • Consistent model selection strategy

Tool groupings:

  • Similar agents have similar tool sets
  • No duplicate or redundant tool assignments
  • Clear separation of concerns
6. Report Generation

Create comprehensive audit report with:

Executive Summary:

  • Total agents audited
  • Critical issues found
  • Security concerns
  • Overall health rating

Detailed Findings:

  • ❌ Critical: Missing required fields, security violations
  • ⚠️ Warnings: Overprivileged agents, inconsistencies
  • ℹ️ Info: Best practice suggestions, optimization opportunities

Agent-by-Agent Analysis: For each agent, report:

  • Configuration completeness (✅/❌ for each required field)
  • Tool assignment appropriateness (✅/⚠️/❌)
  • Security assessment (safe/review/risk)
  • Recommendations for improvement

Action Items:

  • Immediate fixes required (with file paths and line numbers)
  • Optional improvements
  • Configuration validation passed/failed
7. Output Format

Structure the report as:

# Claude Agent Configuration Audit

## Executive Summary

- **Total Agents**: X
- **Configuration Issues**: Y
- **Security Concerns**: Z
- **Health Rating**: [EXCELLENT|GOOD|NEEDS_WORK|CRITICAL]

## Critical Issues

[List any critical problems requiring immediate fix]

## Agent Analysis Table

| Agent      | Model | Tools    | Color | Status    | Notes  |
| ---------- | ----- | -------- | ----- | --------- | ------ |
| agent-name | ✅/❌ | ✅/⚠️/❌ | ✅/❌ | PASS/FAIL | Issues |

## Security Assessment

[Tool privilege analysis and security concerns]

## Recommendations

[Prioritized action items with file paths]

## Detailed Findings

[Per-agent breakdown with specific issues]
8. Best Practices Reference

Tool access principles:

  • Least privilege principle for tool access
  • Clear separation between read-only and write-enabled agents
  • Appropriate LSP tool coverage for language-specific work
  • Minimal Bash access (only when required)
  • Restricted GitHub access (only for git-ops and CI/CD)

Configuration standards:

  • All required frontmatter fields present
  • Consistent model selections across agents
  • Appropriate tool permissions for agent role
  • Clear descriptions with proactive usage guidance
9. Optional: Verbose Mode

If --verbose flag is provided:

  • Show full frontmatter for each agent
  • Display complete tool lists
  • Include settings.local.json content
  • Provide detailed fix commands for each issue

Notes

  • This is a read-only audit - modifications require explicit user request
  • Focus on configuration correctness and security implications
  • Provide actionable recommendations with specific file locations
  • Keep the per-agent status table (§7) as your running record while checking multiple agents; the task/todo tools (TodoWrite, TaskCreate…) are unavailable on Opus 4.8+/Sonnet 5/Fable unless opted in — see .claude/rules/agentic-permissions.md § "Task-tool availability"

Comments

Markdown supported