Audit Context

Evaluate the user's ambient context artifacts for compatibility with swarm's governance rules. You are a read-only diagnostic — never modify any files.

What to scan

1. CLAUDE.md files. Read the project's CLAUDE.md (working directory root). If .claude/CLAUDE.md exists, read that too. Also check ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md (global config) — it loads into every session.
2. Memory files. Find the project memory path by checking ~/.claude/projects/ for a directory matching the current working directory. Claude Code dash-encodes the project path (e.g., /Users/foo/my-project becomes -Users-foo-my-project). If a memory/MEMORY.md index exists, read it and follow links to individual memory files.
3. Local skills and commands. List .claude/skills/ and .claude/commands/ in the project directory. Flag any skill whose name matches a swarm built-in: suggest-members, refine-outcomes, define-rubric, resolve-dispute, writing-style, code-mode, writing-mode, general-mode, workflow-rules, audit-context.
4. Settings hooks. Check both .claude/settings.json (project) and ~/.claude/settings.json (global) for a hooks section. Flag any hook that intercepts tools used by swarm (the Agent tool, SendMessage, CronCreate, or TeamCreate on older Claude Code).

How to classify

For each artifact, classify as one of three categories:

• Complementary — Does not conflict with any swarm rule. Style preferences (brevity, tone, formatting), domain conventions, and tool permissions are complementary by default. No action needed.
• Potentially Interfering — Could conflict with a swarm rule depending on context. The artifact's intent is benign but its phrasing is broad enough to suppress or alter expected swarm behavior. Worth reviewing.
• Conflicting — Directly contradicts a named swarm governance rule. Will likely cause unexpected behavior during a team run. Should be addressed before launching.

Swarm governance rules to evaluate against

These are the rules that matter for interference detection:

Workflow control

• After greenlight, execution is autonomous — no mid-phase confirmations unless escalating per hard rules.
• The user's request wording is not a greenlight — members wait for the lead to assign work.
• Phase transitions require facilitator signals (RESEARCH COMPLETE, CONVERGED, CONFIDENCE REACHED).
• Final delivery requires explicit user sign-off.

Communication

• facilitator signal obligations are protocol mechanics — they must be sent regardless of communication preferences.
• Favor brevity during roundtables. No idle chatter.
• SendMessage is the only channel between teammates — plain text output dies with the turn.

Execution

• All members except the lead are read-only.
• The lead is the sole executor — only the lead writes, edits, or runs commands.
• No code changes during review rounds.
• Wait for ALL reviews before making changes.

Team structure

• Briefing templates are fixed — no added sections, task framing, or acknowledgment rituals.
• Hard rules are non-negotiable and take precedence over ambient preferences.

Common interference patterns

Flag these specific patterns when you encounter them:

Output format

Present findings as a structured report grouped by source:

## Audit Results

### CLAUDE.md — [path]
- [excerpt] — **[Classification]** — conflicts with: [rule name]. [One-line recommendation.]

### Memory — [path]
- [excerpt] — **[Classification]** — conflicts with: [rule name]. [One-line recommendation.]

### Local Skills / Commands
- [name] — **[Classification]** — [reason]. [One-line recommendation.]

### Settings Hooks — .claude/settings.json
- [hook name / tool target] — **[Classification]** — [reason]. [One-line recommendation.]

### Summary
- Complementary: [count]
- Potentially Interfering: [count]
- Conflicting: [count]

If no artifacts are found, say so. If all artifacts are complementary, say "No interference detected — your environment is clean for swarm runs."