Skill

output-auditor

Multi-angle review of responses before delivery. Audits from 4 perspectives -- factual accuracy, logical consistency, completeness, and safety. Use for high-stakes responses where errors have real consequences.

From output-auditor

Install

Run in your terminal

npx claudepluginhub a-ariff/ariff-claude-plugins --plugin output-auditor

Tool Access

This skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.

Skill Content

Similar Skills

cache-components

Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.

cache-components

138.6k

claude-opus-4-5-migration

2 files

Migrates code, prompts, and API calls from Claude Sonnet 4.0/4.5 or Opus 4.1 to Opus 4.5, updating model strings on Anthropic, AWS, GCP, Azure platforms.

claude-opus-4-5-migration

83.2k

evaluation-methodology

1 file

Details PluginEval's skill quality evaluation: 3 layers (static, LLM judge), 10 dimensions, rubrics, formulas, anti-patterns, badges. Use to interpret scores, improve triggering, calibrate thresholds.

plugin-eval

32.9k

Stats

Parent Repo Stars3

Parent Repo Forks0

Last CommitMar 16, 2026

Actions

View Source View Plugin View on GitHub View README

Output Auditor: 4-Angle Response Review

Review every response from 4 independent angles before delivery.

The 4 audit angles

Angle 1: Factual accuracy

Is every claim true?

Check:

File paths exist
Function names are correct
Code quotes match actual files
Version numbers are current
Behavior descriptions match actual code

Angle 2: Logical consistency

Does the response contradict itself?

Check:

Does the diagnosis match the suggested fix?
Are the steps in the right order?
Do dependencies match (step 3 doesn't require something from step 5)?
Are there circular arguments?
Does the explanation match the code?

Angle 3: Completeness

Is anything missing?

Check:

Does it answer the actual question?
Are edge cases covered?
Are prerequisites mentioned?
Is there a rollback plan for risky changes?
Are there obvious alternatives not mentioned?

Angle 4: Safety

Could this cause harm?

Check:

Could this code change break existing functionality?
Could this advice create a security vulnerability?
Could this command cause data loss?
Are there race conditions or concurrency issues?
Is error handling adequate?

Audit process

Write the response
Run each angle as a mental checkpoint
For each issue found, fix it before delivering
If you can't fix it, flag it clearly in the response

Severity levels

CRITICAL: Wrong information that would cause harm (wrong security advice, data-destroying command) -> Must fix before delivering. If you can't fix, do not deliver.

WARNING: Incomplete or potentially misleading information -> Fix if possible. If not, add a clear caveat.

MINOR: Style issues, missing context that isn't essential -> Fix if quick. Otherwise note for follow-up.

Quick audit checklist

Before sending any response with code or technical advice:

[ ] Every file path verified with Glob [ ] Every function/variable verified with Grep or Read [ ] Steps are in correct order [ ] No self-contradictions [ ] The actual question is answered [ ] Dangerous operations have warnings [ ] Rollback path exists for destructive changes