Decision-Enabling Audit Reasons
Make keep, improve, retire and merge verdicts state the evidence, action and replacement rather than a vague label.
These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.
Use case
Audit overlapping deployment skills A/B and stale wrapper C. Overlap/too long labels do not guide implementation; dispositions need destinations, retained content and reasons.
Mechanism
Inspect payloads/callers/evidence and give self-contained Keep/Improve/Retire/Merge rationales. Merges name target sections/content/conflicts/permissions; improvements name behavior; retirements name defects/verified replacements; keeps restate unique value. Mark unchecked currency and keep proposals distinct from deletion/install.
Bad example
A overlaps, B good, C old—labels complete the audit.
Good example
Propose A rollback notes into B’s rollback section with duplicated and unique recovery checks identified. Retire C only after D is verified to cover need, retaining migration identity. Cite inspected paths, evidence, actions and unresolved contracts.
Why the change matters
Self-contained reasons connect judgments to implementation without repeating investigation. Replacement/conflict details protect unique behavior.
Observable expectation
Teaching entries have target/action/evidence; unverified D cannot retire C. Mtime-only unchanged keeps retain rationale/verification time. Usage frequency is not quality proof.
Limits
Judgment remains and current tools need verification; frozen examples are not current facts. Permission/deletion changes follow actual authority, not the disposition label.