Running Better Audits

Ennodia can ask several agents for review, but the result still depends on the audit rubric. A vague request such as “audit the website” often turns into a consistency pass: broken links, mismatched docs, release metadata, type errors, and copy drift. That is useful, but it does not prove the page is clear to a first-time visitor.

Quick Recipe

Use a source-grounded audit when the answer depends on docs, standards, package behavior, or another product’s public surface:

{
  "tool": "ennodia_run",
  "arguments": {
    "prompt": "Audit these docs against the linked primary sources. Separate facts from judgment and recommend exact edits.",
    "mode": "parallel",
    "compare": true,
    "skillIds": ["source-grounded-audit"]
  }
}

Install the skill first if the harness has not seen it yet. See Using Agent Skills.

Pick the Audit Mode

Name the failure mode you want reviewers to catch.

Audit mode	Main question
Consistency	Do the docs, website, package metadata, and behavior agree?
Conversion	Would a first-time visitor understand why to install this?
Visual QA	Does the rendered page look balanced on desktop and mobile?
Accessibility	Can the page be navigated and understood with assistive technology?
Release	Can the package be published, installed, and launched safely?

Use separate passes when the stakes are different. A page can pass consistency and still fail conversion.

For a large review, split the work into focused slices instead of sending the entire prompt to every reviewer. See Compositional Audits.

Landing Page Rubric

For landing pages, ask each reviewer to answer these questions:

• Can a first-time visitor explain what the product does within ten seconds?
• Is the reason to install visible in the hero or first section?
• Is the install path visible before architecture details?
• Does the page use user language instead of maintainer language?
• Are screenshots or rendered viewports available for visual judgment?
• Does the final section strengthen trust instead of ending on defensive copy?

For Ennodia itself, prefer mode: "parallel" and compare: true for this kind of review. A single source-only answer is not enough for product-facing pages.

Include Rendered Evidence

Source-only review misses visual problems. Before asking Ennodia to judge a website, include desktop and mobile screenshots or ask a harness with browser access to inspect the rendered page.

Rendered evidence catches problems such as oversized logos, unbalanced hero spacing, text that feels too large or too small, delayed content, and accidental visual hierarchy.

When screenshots or other local files matter, include both the file paths and a short text description. Then check the child outputs for access errors. If a harness cannot read the files, stage them somewhere it can access and rerun; do not treat that failure as a normal design review.

Ground Standards in Sources

When the audit depends on an external standard, registry convention, or product behavior, include the sources in the prompt and ask reviewers to separate facts from judgment. Otherwise a model council can confidently optimize the wrong model of the world.

Agent Skills are the cautionary example: they are not an Ennodia-private prompt format. They are portable SKILL.md folders discovered by tools such as Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, and Antigravity in native locations. A useful audit for skills must start from those product docs before recommending an Ennodia API.

The bundled source-grounded-audit skill exists for this case. Install it into the harnesses you use for standards-sensitive audits, then ask Ennodia to use that skill when the answer depends on external docs.

Good Prompt Shape

Audit this landing page as a first-time visitor, not as a code consistency
reviewer.

Read:
- website/src/pages/index.astro
- website/src/styles/landing.css

If screenshots are available, judge the rendered page too.

Return:
1. The top conversion blockers, prioritized.
2. Whether the first viewport explains what this is and why to install it.
3. Exact replacement copy for weak sections.
4. Visual changes needed for desktop and mobile.
5. Which issues a consistency-only audit would miss.

The last item matters. It forces the reviewer to state the limits of the audit, which helps decide whether another pass is needed.