Context

!ls .github/workflows/*.yaml 2>/dev/null !grep -h 'uses:.*kdeldycke/repomatic' .github/workflows/*.yaml 2>/dev/null | head -5 !grep -A5 '\[tool.repomatic\]' pyproject.toml 2>/dev/null || echo "No [tool.repomatic] section" ![ -f repomatic/__init__.py ] && echo "CANONICAL_REPO" || echo "DOWNSTREAM"

Instructions

You perform a comprehensive audit of a downstream repository against the upstream kdeldycke/repomatic reference. This goes beyond what repomatic workflow sync handles — it catches stale action versions in custom job content, missing workarounds, outdated configs, and conventions that can be borrowed from upstream.

This skill is for downstream repos only. If the context shows CANONICAL_REPO, tell the user this skill is not applicable.

Scope selection

• all (default when $ARGUMENTS is empty): Run all audits below.
• workflows: Audit workflow files only.
• configs: Audit non-workflow config files only.
• claude: Audit claude.md alignment only.
• upstream: Identify downstream innovations that could be contributed back to repomatic.

Fetching reference files

Use gh api repos/kdeldycke/repomatic/contents/{path} --jq '.content' | base64 -d to fetch upstream reference files.

1. Workflow audit (workflows)

Thin-caller workflows

Compare each local thin-caller workflow against its reference. These should be identical (except for files listed in exclude). Flag:

• Extra triggers (e.g., spurious workflow_dispatch).
• Missing triggers.
• Version pin drift (different @vX.Y.Z tag).

Header-only workflows (e.g., tests.yaml)

The header (name, on:, concurrency:) is synced automatically, but custom job content is not. Compare the job content against the reference for:

• Stale action versions: e.g., actions/checkout, astral-sh/setup-uv, codecov/* — compare pinned versions.
• Missing workarounds: e.g., the "Force native ARM64 Python on Windows ARM64" step that sets UV_PYTHON.
• Missing matrix exclusions: e.g., windows-11-arm + Python 3.10 (no native ARM64 build).
• Outdated integration patterns: e.g., using codecov-action when upstream migrated to codecov-cli via uvx.
• Missing pytest output flags: e.g., --cov-report=xml, --junitxml=junit.xml needed for codecov-cli.
• YAML scalar style issues: e.g., run: | where run: > is needed for multi-line single commands.

Excluded workflows

Respect exclude entries from [tool.repomatic] in pyproject.toml. Report excluded files but do not flag them as drift.

2. Config file audit (configs)

Compare these files against the upstream reference:

Skip files that are intentionally excluded via exclude in [tool.repomatic].

3. claude.md audit (claude)

Fetch the upstream claude.md and identify universally applicable sections that the local claude.md is missing. Focus on:

• Terminology and spelling rules.
• Version formatting conventions.
• Modern typing practices.
• Python version compatibility caveats.
• Testing guidelines (e.g., "no test classes" rule).
• Common maintenance pitfalls.
• Command-line option conventions.

Do not flag upstream sections that are project-specific (e.g., CLI abstractions, workflow design, release checklists, agent conventions).

4. Upstream contribution opportunities (upstream)

Scan the downstream repo for patterns, workarounds, or configurations that are better than or missing from the upstream reference. These are candidates for contributing back to kdeldycke/repomatic. Look for:

• Broader test matrices: e.g., more OS variants, extra Python versions, additional architecture coverage that upstream could adopt as defaults.
• Workarounds for known issues: Steps or configs that fix CI failures or edge cases that upstream hasn't addressed yet.
• Better tool configurations: e.g., ruff extend-include patterns, pytest addopts, coverage settings that are more complete than upstream.
• Useful pyproject.toml patterns: e.g., dependency group definitions, build config, or tool settings that could be generalized.
• Custom workflow steps: Reusable patterns in header-only workflows (e.g., package install verification, environment variable passing) that could become part of the reference workflow.
• Documentation improvements: claude.md sections, issue templates, or repo metadata patterns that would benefit all downstream repos.

For each candidate, assess:

1. Generalizability: Would this benefit most downstream repos, or is it project-specific?
2. Complexity: Is it a simple config change or a significant workflow redesign?
3. Action: Suggest filing as a GitHub issue or PR at kdeldycke/repomatic, with a draft title and description.

Output format

For each audit area, produce:

1. A summary table: item, status (MATCH / DRIFT / MISSING / N/A), brief description.
2. For each issue: what the current state is, what the reference has, and the recommended fix.
3. Prioritize: group by severity (breaking/functional issues first, then consistency, then cosmetic).

After running

Suggest the user run:

• /repomatic-sync to fix thin-caller workflow drift automatically.
• Manual edits for header-only workflow drift and config changes.
• /repomatic-lint to validate after fixes are applied.