skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-628-concurrency-auditor

ln-628-concurrency-auditor

SKILL.md

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.

Concurrency Auditor (L3 Worker)

Specialized worker auditing concurrency, async patterns, and cross-process resource access.

Purpose & Scope

  • Worker in ln-620 coordinator pipeline
  • Audit concurrency (Category 11: High Priority)
  • 7 checks: async races, thread safety, TOCTOU, deadlocks, blocking I/O, resource contention, cross-process races
  • Two-layer detection: grep finds candidates, agent reasons about context
  • Calculate compliance score (X/10)

Inputs (from Coordinator)

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

Receives contextStore with: tech_stack, best_practices, codebase_root, output_dir.

Workflow

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/two_layer_detection.md for detection methodology.

  1. Parse context — extract tech_stack, language, output_dir from contextStore
  2. Per check (1-7):
    • Layer 1: Grep/Glob scan to find candidates
    • Layer 2: Read 20-50 lines around each candidate. Apply check-specific critical questions. Classify: confirmed / false positive / needs-context
  3. Collect confirmed findings with severity, location, effort, recommendation
  4. Calculate score per shared/references/audit_scoring.md
  5. Write Report — build in memory, write to {output_dir}/628-concurrency.md (atomic single Write)
  6. Return Summary to coordinator

Audit Rules

Unified severity escalation: For ALL checks — if finding affects payment/auth/financial code → escalate to CRITICAL regardless of other factors.

1. Async/Event-Loop Races (CWE-362)

What: Shared state corrupted across await/yield boundaries in single-threaded async code.

Layer 1 — Grep patterns:

Language Pattern Grep
JS/TS Read-modify-write across await \w+\s*[+\-*/]?=\s*.*await (e.g., result += await something)
JS/TS Check-then-initialize race if\s*\(!?\w+\) followed by \w+\s*=\s*await in same block
Python Read-modify-write across await \w+\s*[+\-*/]?=\s*await inside async def
Python Shared module-level state in async Module-level \w+\s*= + modified inside async def
All Shared cache without lock `.set(

Layer 2 — Critical questions:

  • Is the variable shared (module/global scope) or local?
  • Can two async tasks interleave at this await point?
  • Is there a lock/mutex/semaphore guarding the access?

Severity: CRITICAL (payment/auth) | HIGH (user-facing) | MEDIUM (background)

Safe pattern exclusions: Local variables, const declarations, single-use await (no interleaving possible).

Effort: M

2. Thread/Goroutine Safety (CWE-366)

What: Shared mutable state accessed from multiple threads/goroutines without synchronization.

Layer 1 — Grep patterns:

Language Pattern Grep
Go Map access without mutex map\[.*\].*= in struct without sync.Mutex or sync.RWMutex
Go Variable captured by goroutine go func + variable from outer scope modified
Python Global modified in threads global\s+\w+ in function + threading.Thread in same file
Java HashMap shared between threads HashMap + Thread|Executor|Runnable in same class without synchronized|ConcurrentHashMap
Rust Rc in multi-thread context Rc<RefCell + thread::spawn|tokio::spawn in same file
Node.js Worker Threads shared state workerData|SharedArrayBuffer|parentPort + mutable access without Atomics

Layer 2 — Critical questions:

  • Is this struct/object actually shared between threads? (single-threaded code → FP)
  • Is mutex/lock in embedded struct or imported module? (grep may miss it)
  • Is go func capturing by value (safe) or by reference (unsafe)?

Severity: CRITICAL (payment/auth) | HIGH (data corruption possible) | MEDIUM (internal)

Safe pattern exclusions: Go map in init() or main() before goroutines start. Rust Arc<Mutex<T>> (already safe). Java Collections.synchronizedMap().

Effort: M

3. TOCTOU — Time-of-Check Time-of-Use (CWE-367)

What: Resource state checked, then used, but state can change between check and use.

Layer 1 — Grep patterns:

Language Check Use Grep
Python os.path.exists() open() os\.path\.exists\( near open\( on same variable
Python os.access() os.open() os\.access\( near os\.open\(|open\(
Node.js fs.existsSync() fs.readFileSync() existsSync\( near readFileSync\(|readFile\(
Node.js fs.accessSync() fs.openSync() accessSync\( near openSync\(
Go os.Stat() os.Open() os\.Stat\( near os\.Open\(|os\.Create\(
Java .exists() new FileInputStream \.exists\(\) near new File|FileInputStream|FileOutputStream

Layer 2 — Critical questions:

  • Is the check used for control flow (vulnerable) or just logging (safe)?
  • Is there a lock/retry around the check-then-use sequence?
  • Is the file in a temp directory controlled by the application (lower risk)?
  • Could an attacker substitute the file (symlink attack)?

Severity: CRITICAL (security-sensitive: permissions, auth tokens, configs) | HIGH (user-facing file ops) | MEDIUM (internal/background)

Safe pattern exclusions: Check inside try/catch with retry. Check for logging/metrics only. Check + use wrapped in file lock.

Effort: S-M (replace check-then-use with direct use + error handling)

4. Deadlock Potential (CWE-833)

What: Lock acquisition in inconsistent order, or lock held during blocking operation.

Layer 1 — Grep patterns:

Language Pattern Grep
Python Nested locks with\s+\w+_lock: (multiline: two different locks nested)
Python Lock in loop for.*: with \.acquire\(\) inside loop body
Python Lock + external call \.acquire\(\) followed by await|requests\.|urllib before release
Go Missing defer unlock \.Lock\(\) without defer.*\.Unlock\(\) on next line
Go Nested locks Two \.Lock\(\) calls in same function without intervening \.Unlock\(\)
Java Nested synchronized synchronized\s*\( (multiline: nested blocks with different monitors)
JS Async mutex nesting await\s+\w+\.acquire\(\) (two different mutexes in same function)

Layer 2 — Critical questions:

  • Are these the same lock (reentrant = OK) or different locks (deadlock risk)?
  • Is the lock ordering consistent across all call sites?
  • Does the external call inside lock have a timeout?

Severity: CRITICAL (payment/auth) | HIGH (app freeze risk)

Safe pattern exclusions: Reentrant locks (same lock acquired twice). Locks with explicit timeout (asyncio.wait_for, tryLock).

Effort: L (lock ordering redesign)

5. Blocking I/O in Async Context (CWE-400)

What: Synchronous blocking calls inside async functions or event loop handlers.

Layer 1 — Grep patterns:

Language Blocking Call Grep Replacement
Python time.sleep in async def time\.sleep inside async def await asyncio.sleep
Python requests.* in async def requests\.(get|post|put|delete) inside async def httpx or aiohttp
Python open() in async def open\( inside async def aiofiles.open
Node.js fs.readFileSync in async fs\.readFileSync|fs\.writeFileSync|fs\.mkdirSync fs.promises.*
Node.js execSync in async execSync|spawnSync in async handler exec with promises
Node.js Sync crypto in async crypto\.pbkdf2Sync|crypto\.scryptSync crypto.pbkdf2 (callback)

Layer 2 — Critical questions:

  • Is this in a hot path (API handler) or cold path (startup script)?
  • Is the blocking duration significant (>100ms)?
  • Is there a legitimate reason (e.g., sync read of small config at startup)?

Severity: HIGH (blocks event loop/async context) | MEDIUM (minor blocking <100ms)

Safe pattern exclusions: Blocking call in if __name__ == "__main__" (startup). readFileSync in config loading at init time. Sync crypto for small inputs.

Effort: S-M (replace with async alternative)

6. Resource Contention (CWE-362)

What: Multiple concurrent accessors compete for same resource without coordination.

Layer 1 — Grep patterns:

Pattern Risk Grep
Shared memory without sync Data corruption SharedArrayBuffer|SharedMemory|shm_open|mmap without Atomics|Mutex|Lock nearby
IPC without coordination Message ordering process\.send|parentPort\.postMessage in concurrent loops
Concurrent file append Interleaved writes Multiple appendFile|fs\.write to same path from parallel tasks

Layer 2 — Critical questions:

  • Are multiple writers actually concurrent? (Sequential = safe)
  • Is there OS-level atomicity guarantee? (e.g., O_APPEND for small writes)
  • Is ordering important for correctness?

Severity: HIGH (data corruption) | MEDIUM (ordering issues)

Safe pattern exclusions: Single writer pattern. OS-guaranteed atomic operations (small pipe writes, O_APPEND). Message queues with ordering guarantees.

Effort: M

7. Cross-Process & Invisible Side Effects (CWE-362, CWE-421)

What: Multiple processes or process+OS accessing same exclusive resource, including operations with non-obvious side effects on shared OS resources.

Layer 1 — Grep entry points:

Pattern Risk Grep
Clipboard dual access OSC 52 + native clipboard in same flow osc52|\\x1b\\]52 AND clipboard|SetClipboardData|pbcopy|xclip in same file
Subprocess + shared file Parent and child write same file spawn|exec|Popen + writeFile|open.*"w" on same path
OS exclusive resource Win32 clipboard, serial port, named pipe OpenClipboard|serial\.Serial|CreateNamedPipe|mkfifo
Terminal escape sequences stdout triggers terminal OS access \\x1b\\]|\\033\\]|writeOsc|xterm
External clipboard tools Clipboard via spawned process pbcopy|xclip|xsel|clip\.exe

Layer 2 — This check relies on reasoning more than any other:

  1. Build Resource Inventory:

    Resource Exclusive? Accessor 1 Accessor 2 Sync present?
  2. Trace Timeline:

    t=0ms  operation_A() -> resource_X accessed
    t=?ms  side_effect   -> resource_X accessed by external process
    t=?ms  operation_B() -> resource_X accessed again -> CONFLICT?
    
  3. Critical Questions:

    • Can another process (terminal, OS, child) access this resource simultaneously?
    • Does this operation have invisible side effects on shared OS resources?
    • What happens if the external process is slower/faster than expected?
    • What happens if user triggers this action twice rapidly?

Severity: CRITICAL (two accessors to exclusive OS resource without sync) | HIGH (subprocess + shared file without lock) | HIGH (invisible side effect detected via reasoning)

Safe pattern exclusions: Single accessor. Retry/backoff pattern present. Operations sequenced with explicit delay/await.

Effort: M-L (may require removing redundant access path)

Scoring Algorithm

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/references/audit_scoring.md.

Output Format

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md and shared/templates/audit_worker_report_template.md.

Write report to {output_dir}/628-concurrency.md with category: "Concurrency" and checks: async_races, thread_safety, toctou, deadlock_potential, blocking_io, resource_contention, cross_process_races.

Return summary to coordinator:

Report written: docs/project/.audit/ln-620/{YYYY-MM-DD}/628-concurrency.md
Score: X.X/10 | Issues: N (C:N H:N M:N L:N)

Critical Rules

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • Do not auto-fix: Report only — concurrency fixes require careful human review
  • Two-layer detection: Always apply Layer 2 reasoning after Layer 1 grep. Never report raw grep matches without context analysis
  • Language-aware detection: Use language-specific patterns per check
  • Unified CRITICAL escalation: Any finding in payment/auth/financial code = CRITICAL
  • Effort realism: S = <1h, M = 1-4h, L = >4h
  • Exclusions: Skip test files, skip single-threaded CLI tools, skip generated code

Definition of Done

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/audit_worker_core_contract.md.

  • contextStore parsed (language, concurrency model, output_dir)
  • All 7 checks completed with two-layer detection:
    • async races, thread safety, TOCTOU, deadlock potential, blocking I/O, resource contention, cross-process races
  • Layer 2 reasoning applied to each candidate (confirmed / FP / needs-context)
  • Findings collected with severity, location, effort, recommendation
  • Score calculated per shared/references/audit_scoring.md
  • Report written to {output_dir}/628-concurrency.md (atomic single Write call)
  • Summary returned to coordinator

Reference Files

  • Two-layer detection methodology: shared/references/two_layer_detection.md
  • Audit output schema: shared/references/audit_output_schema.md

Version: 4.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-03-04

Weekly Installs
94
GitHub Stars
202
First Seen
Jan 24, 2026
Installed on
claude-code85
opencode83
gemini-cli82
codex82
cursor80
github-copilot75