Risk-Based Value Auditor (L3 Worker) Skill

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. If shared/ is missing, fetch files via WebFetch from https://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.md in 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: KEEP

Example 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

Agent Skills: Risk-Based Value Auditor (L3 Worker)

Install this agent skill to your local

Skill Files