Imported from getsentry/sentry-cocoa (skills/relay-conformance-audit/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add getsentry/sentry-cocoa --skill relay-conformance-audit. Copyright stays with the author.

Cocoa ↔ Relay conformance audit

The SDK hard-codes many strings and wire formats that must match Relay exactly — header names, envelope item types, data categories, discard reasons, DSC keys, session fields. A mismatch anywhere in that surface fails silently: data is dropped, mis-routed, or miscounted with no error. This skill audits that entire surface. One motivating example of the class: #8322 (a case-sensitive X-Sentry-Rate-Limits header read silently rate-limited all telemetry) — but the skill exists to hunt bugs like it, wherever they occur, not that one bug.

READ-ONLY toward the SDK. Never edit SDK code. Never modify references/findings.md (the human-maintained ignore list). The skill's primary output is relay-audit: GitHub issues (created or edited — see "GitHub issues"). The one other permitted write is a draft PR the coverage check opens against getsentry/sentry-cocoa that touches nothing but references/surface-map.md (see "Coverage check"). When the map is out of date, the skill opens that draft PR directly rather than only flagging the gap.

Model

Every run evaluates the full current list of mismatches — no delta tracking, no run-to-run memory. GitHub is the tracker; references/findings.md holds only the ignore list. A mismatch is in one of three states:

• Ignored — listed in references/findings.md with an explicit ignore-scenario. Skipped (counted only) while the scenario holds; becomes needs-action when it no longer holds.
• Needs action — everything else, unless cross-SDK corroboration drops it. Matched to a GitHub issue by fingerprint and filed via the pipeline in "GitHub issues" (open match → edit; expired-ignore closed match whose back-ref proves the audit closed it → reopen; other closed match → comment once; no match → create).
• Cross-SDK false positive — a needs-action mismatch whose all-sdks-agree verdict drops it: no issue, no per-finding detail (so a false positive never reads as real), counted only as an aggregate dropped all-sdks-agree <n> in the console summary (see "Cross-SDK corroboration").

A live GitHub search precedes every create, so the audit never opens a duplicate. It also never closes issues or edits the ignore list itself — the reverse checks (Procedure step 6) only surface stale open issues and stale ignore entries for a human to act on.

Procedure

1. Record git rev-parse HEAD (full SHA — needed for permalinks), git rev-parse --short HEAD, and date +%Y-%m-%d via shell (never hardcode); the full SHA builds the code links, the short SHA + date stamp each issue.
2. For each area in references/surface-map.md, spawn one read-only subagent (parallel). Contract: fetch the listed Relay source / develop-docs pages, read the listed Cocoa files, diff per the area's notes. Return mismatches as {area, severity HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW, file + symbol, line range (start–end), exact wire strings, spec citation, failure mode}. The line range is required — it builds the commit-pinned permalink. Severity = silent blast radius, not fix effort. In parallel with these, spawn the coverage-check subagent (see "Coverage check").
3. Classify each mismatch against references/findings.md on fingerprint (area + file + normalized summary — never line numbers/severity; those vary between runs): listed and ignore-scenario still holds → ignored, skip; listed but scenario no longer holds → needs action (expired-ignore), carrying that flag and, if present, the entry's (relay-audit #<n>) back-reference; not listed → needs action. Every expired-ignore finding also means its findings.md row is now stale — always surface that row in the console summary under ignore-list entries expired — verify & prune for a human to remove, independent of which issue path Dedup then takes (Dedup reopens only when the entry's back-ref matches the closed issue it hits; otherwise create / edit-open / comment-closed like any other finding). Without this, entries added before back-refs existed (or that take create/open-edit) would keep the finding permanently flagged expired-ignore and permanently exempt from the all-sdks-agree drop.
4. Cross-SDK corroboration (see below): for every mismatch that is still needs action after step 3, check how the peer SDKs implement the same wire surface. This is the confidence gate — it strengthens cocoa-only findings with exact peer code locations and silently drops all-sdks-agree false positives. Exception: an expired-ignore finding (step 3) is never dropped here — it still reproduces and its stale ignore row must be surfaced, so it always proceeds to step 5 regardless of verdict (its cross-SDK result is recorded in whichever issue Dedup files/reopens/comments).
5. For each mismatch that survives the cross-SDK gate, run the GitHub-issue pipeline (see "GitHub issues" → Dedup) to file it.
6. Reverse checks (no-longer-reproduces). Two symmetric checks against this run's raw mismatch set from Procedure step 2 (every mismatch observed — reported, ignored at step 3, and dropped as all-sdks-agree at the cross-SDK gate; all still reproduce, only the pipeline's disposition differs — so match on the raw set, not the filed subset; enumerating a subset and forgetting a category is exactly what mis-flags):
   • 6a — open issues. List all open relay-audit: issues (gh issue list --repo getsentry/sentry-cocoa --search "relay-audit: in:title" --state open --limit 1000 --json number,title,body; body is required to reconstruct each issue's fingerprint — file lives in the body, so without --json ...,body the match can't be built; same pagination guard as dedup — if the result equals the limit, page before trusting it). Any open issue with no matching mismatch this run is a no-longer-reproduces candidate: do not close it (a run may miss a finding for benign reasons — a moved file, a flaky peer search); list it in the console summary under "no longer reproduces — verify & close". This backs the Model's promise; without it a fixed mismatch's issue would linger forever.
   • 6b — ignore-list entries. Diff each references/findings.md ignored entry's fingerprint against the same raw mismatch set. Any ignored entry with no matching mismatch this run no longer reproduces: do not edit findings.md (read-only toward it); list its fingerprint in the console summary under "ignore-list entries no longer reproducing — verify & prune" so a human prunes it. This backs the Model's promise for the ignore list, symmetric to 6a for issues.
7. Print the console summary (see "Console summary") and append the coverage-check result. If gh is unauthenticated or any gh call fails, print everything and state loudly that the issue write FAILED — never report success on a failed write.

Coverage check (surface-map self-audit)

The audit only inspects what the surface map lists, so a stale map is a silent coverage hole. Every run, one extra subagent checks the map itself — from both directions:

• SDK side: list protocol-relevant code the map does NOT reference. Grep the SDK for wire-emitting surfaces: serialize implementations feeding envelopes, envelope item construction, setValue(_:forHTTPHeaderField:) / header reads, files under Sources/Swift/Networking/ and Sources/Swift/Protocol/, new integrations writing envelope items. Compare against the files the map lists; report unlisted ones that put bytes on the wire.
• Relay side: for each Relay/spec source the map cites, check it still exists (note moved paths) and skim Relay's protocol enums (DataCategory, ItemType, discard reasons, DSC keys) for members added since the map's checks were written that no area would catch.
• Ignore non-wire code (SentryCrash/ internals, UI, tests) — the bar is "could a mismatch here silently corrupt what Relay receives?".

Outcome:

• Map up to date → one line in the console summary: coverage: OK.
• Gaps found → list them in the console summary under coverage: GAPS, and directly open a draft PR against getsentry/sentry-cocoa (base main) that updates ONLY references/surface-map.md — don't just describe it, push it. The map drifts as the SDK changes, so this is the mechanism that keeps it current. Mechanically:
  1. Edit skills/relay-conformance-audit/references/surface-map.md only — extend an area's file list, fix a moved Relay path, or add a new area (with What it is / Cocoa / Relay-Spec / Check, all links as blob/main (Cocoa) or blob/master (Relay), matching the file's existing format).
  2. Branch chore/relay-audit-surface-map-<date>. Commit just that file: chore: update relay-audit surface map with #skip-changelog in the body.
  3. Push and gh pr create --draft --base main --title "chore: update relay-audit surface map"; body = the gap list + one line per gap on why it belongs in the map + "Opened by relay-conformance-audit coverage check, , @." Put the resulting PR URL in the console summary's coverage line.
  • This is the skill's only permitted repository write (issue creation/editing aside): never touch SDK code, findings.md, or SKILL.md in that PR; leave it as a draft and never merge — a human reviews. If a draft PR from a previous run is still open, push to that branch and update its body instead of opening a second one. If gh isn't authenticated or the push fails, say so loudly in the console summary and include the diff inline — never report the PR as opened when it wasn't.
• Gaps are NOT mismatches: list them in the coverage section only; the newly-discovered files get audited by the next run after the map PR merges.

Cross-SDK corroboration

Diffing Cocoa against Relay + develop-docs alone produces false positives: when the develop-docs spec is aspirational/wrong, or Relay tolerates a value, the docs-vs-Relay disagreement gets blamed on Cocoa. The peer SDKs are a second source of truth. If Cocoa is the only SDK that diverges, the finding is almost certainly real; if every SDK does the same thing Cocoa does, the "mismatch" is almost certainly a misreading of the spec, not a Cocoa bug.

Run this only on mismatches that are still needs action after the findings.md match (step 3) — never on ignored entries. That bounds the extra searches to exactly the findings that would be reported.

Peer repos, in priority order (mobile first): getsentry/sentry-java, getsentry/sentry-dart, getsentry/sentry-react-native, then getsentry/sentry-javascript, getsentry/sentry-python.

Locate peer code by the wire string, not a file map. The exact literal the mismatch is about (discard-reason string, header name, envelope item-type, DSC key, session field) is the stable locator — search each repo for it, e.g. gh search code --repo getsentry/sentry-java "ratelimit_backoff". This lands directly on the peer's implementation with no per-SDK map to maintain and keep in sync. If the literal search misses (a repo names the constant differently), fall back to the role-analogous file, then move on — a peer you genuinely can't locate is recorded as not-checked, not as agreement.

Count only independent implementations. A peer only corroborates if it implements the audited surface itself. When a peer is a wrapper that delegates the surface to another SDK already in the list, its result is inherited, not independent evidence — so record it as not-checked and exclude it from the quorum. In practice this is sentry-react-native: for native wire surfaces (transport, rate-limit headers, envelope framing) it delegates to the native sentry-cocoa/sentry-java SDKs, and for JS-level surfaces it reuses @sentry/core from sentry-javascript — in both cases the underlying implementation is another peer you already check, so counting RN too would let a single implementation satisfy the two-peer quorum. RN counts only when it carries its own implementation of the specific surface. When unsure whether a peer is independent for a given surface, treat it as not-checked — conservative, never inflates the quorum.

For each needs-action mismatch, classify each independent, located peer into exactly one of three buckets — matches Relay (implements the spec-correct value Cocoa is missing), matches Cocoa (shares Cocoa's divergent value), or matches-neither (implements a third value/format that is neither Relay's nor Cocoa's). A peer you couldn't locate, or a non-independent wrapper, is not-checked and counts toward none of the three. Then set a verdict. The five verdicts are mutually exclusive; evaluate them in this order:

• inconclusive — fewer than 2 independent peers could be located (mobile SDKs preferred in the count). Corroboration is too thin to trust either way → report as needs-action regardless, flagged "cross-SDK inconclusive — only independent peer(s) located". This case takes precedence over the others: never silently drop a finding on weak evidence, because a wire-string search that misses everywhere would otherwise let a real bug vanish. This is the guard against a vacuous all-sdks-agree.
• ecosystem-divergent — ≥2 independent peers located and at least one is matches-neither → a third implementation exists, which is itself a signal of spec ambiguity, not Cocoa-specific breakage. Always report as needs-action; call out each third value and its peer. A matches-neither peer can never be folded into agreement, so this blocks both cocoa-only and all-sdks-agree. Takes precedence over the three below.
• cocoa-only — ≥2 independent peers located and every one matches Relay (none match Cocoa, none matches-neither) → Cocoa is the sole outlier, finding confirmed and strengthened. Report it, flagged higher-confidence, with clickable blob/-pinned links to the peer code showing the correct implementation.
• mixed — ≥2 independent peers located, all classify as either matches-Relay or matches-Cocoa (no matches-neither), and they split (at least one each) → report normally; note which peers side with Cocoa and which with Relay. Do not label a split cocoa-only.
• all-sdks-agree — ≥2 independent peers located and every one matches Cocoa (none matches Relay, none matches-neither) → strong false-positive signal. Before acting, re-read the Relay source directly to confirm what it actually does with the value. Default: drop the finding — file no issue and emit no per-finding detail; the only trace is the aggregate dropped all-sdks-agree <n> counter in the console summary (never the finding's identity). Escape hatch: if after re-reading Relay you are still certain it is a real wire bug affecting all SDKs, report it as needs-action, explicitly labeled "affects all SDKs — likely a spec/Relay-wide issue, not Cocoa-specific" and sorted last; an escape-hatched finding is filed as an issue and is NOT part of the dropped count. The escape hatch is certainty-gated, so the common case stays a silent count.

Add the result to each reported mismatch as crossSDK: { located:[repos], notChecked:[{repo, reason: unlocated|wrapper}], matchRelay:[{sdk, link, note}], matchCocoa:[{sdk, link}], matchNeither:[{sdk, link, value}], verdict: inconclusive|ecosystem-divergent|cocoa-only|mixed|all-sdks-agree }. This block feeds the issue body's cross-SDK section.

GitHub issues

Each needs-action mismatch maps to exactly one relay-audit: GitHub issue on getsentry/sentry-cocoa. Dedup (below) is the authoritative branch — create / edit-open / reopen-expired-ignore / comment-closed. Never open a duplicate; the only closed issue the audit reopens is one whose (relay-audit #n) back-ref proves the audit itself closed it — never a human-closed issue.

Dedup (do this before every create)

1. gh issue list --repo getsentry/sentry-cocoa --search "relay-audit: in:title" --state all --limit 1000 --json number,title,body,state,comments,updatedAt — open + closed. Each field is load-bearing: state (branch open/closed), comments (skip re-posting a closed-match comment), updatedAt (pick the newest when several match — default order is relevance, not recency), body (holds file, needed for the fingerprint). If the result equals 1000 the cap was hit — paginate before trusting a "no match".
2. Match the mismatch's fingerprint (area + file + normalized summary, never line numbers/severity) against each candidate's title + body. On multiple matches, prefer the most-recently-updated open issue (edit it); a closed match drives the closed path only when no open match exists. Note extra same-fingerprint duplicates in the console summary for a human to consolidate.
3. Match found → branch on the winning match's state:
   • open → gh issue edit <number> --body-file <tmp> (rebuilt body; keep the title unless area/summary changed).
   • closed + expired-ignore, and the audit provably closed this issue — the findings.md entry carries a (relay-audit #n) back-ref and the matched closed issue's number equals n → reopen (the only case where the audit is certain it did the closing): gh issue reopen, gh issue edit (rebuilt body), one gh issue comment noting the scenario lapsed as of <SHORT_SHA> () and to remove the findings.md row. Summary: reopened (ignore expired): #<n>.
   • closed, any other reason — including an expired-ignore whose entry has no back-ref, or whose back-ref points at a different issue than the one matched (so the audit can't prove it closed this one; a human may have) → possible regression, but don't presume why a human closed it. Don't reopen/edit/create — post one gh issue comment carrying the stable marker <!-- relay-audit:reproduces-on-closed --> (skip if any comment already has that marker — match the marker, not the SHA/date text). Always list it in the console summary under closed but still reproduces — reopen or ignore: #<n>, whether or not the comment was posted this run.
4. No match → create in two steps (the ignore prompt needs the issue's own number): (a) gh issue create --title … --label relay-audit --body-file <tmp> with the literal #<ISSUE_NUMBER> placeholder, capture the new number; (b) sed the real number into every <ISSUE_NUMBER> and gh issue edit; verify none remain.

Title

relay-audit: <area> — <one-line summary> — the relay-audit: prefix is mandatory on every issue.

Labels

relay-audit (lowercase). If the label doesn't exist yet, create it first (gh label create relay-audit --description "Cocoa ↔ Relay wire-format conformance audit" --color BFD4F2), then pass --label relay-audit on create.

Body (identical shape for create and edit)

First an automated-origin banner (a blockquote — so anyone landing on the issue immediately knows a bot filed it and how), then a short human intro that links the exact code inline, then the full agent-pickup analysis inside a collapsed <details> block. Permalinks use the full SHA recorded in step 1 of the Procedure so they pin to the audited commit and stay clickable:

The body below is shown in a tilde-fenced (~~~) example so the inner triple-backtick prompt block nests cleanly — the issue itself uses normal triple-backtick fences.

> 🤖 Automated issue from the [`relay-conformance-audit`](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-cocoa/blob/<FULL_SHA>/skills/relay-conformance-audit/SKILL.md) skill — weekly bot audit, not hand-filed. Run <DATE> @ `<SHORT_SHA>`. False positive? Use the 🔕 prompt below.

---

<1–3 plain sentences for a human deciding whether to care: what silently breaks, user impact, blast radius. Keep it jargon-free, BUT anchor each claim to the exact code with an inline commit-pinned permalink — e.g. "the SDK rounds the value before sending it ([`SentryTraceContext.m#L108`](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-cocoa/blob/<FULL_SHA>/<path>#L108))". A human should be able to click straight to the offending line from the intro, not only from the details block.>

**Proof of the correct way (peer SDK):** <always present this line; never omit it. For `mixed`/`cocoa-only`, link a Relay-matching peer; for `ecosystem-divergent`, link a third-value peer — an inline `blob/`-pinned link to the exact peer line, e.g. sentry-java at [`Baggage.java#L41`](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-java/blob/<peer-sha>/...#L41). For the two verdicts with no peer to cite, state why instead of linking: `inconclusive` → "Proof: none — fewer than 2 independent peers located; evidence thin"; escape-hatched `all-sdks-agree` → "Proof: none — every peer matches Cocoa; escalated as a likely spec/Relay-wide issue" plus a link to the Relay source you re-read.> Cross-SDK verdict: <verdict + one-clause summary>.

**Severity:** HIGH|MEDIUM|LOW · **Area:** <area>

<details>
<summary>Full analysis (for an agent to pick up)</summary>

**Location:** [`<path> (<symbol>)`](https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-cocoa/blob/<FULL_SHA>/<path>#L<start>-L<end>)
**Wire strings:** <exact strings, casings, edge cases>
**Spec / Relay citation:** [<source>](link)
**Failure mode:** <how it silently drops / mis-routes / miscounts>
**Cross-SDK:** verdict + full per-peer breakdown (each peer → matches-Relay / matches-Cocoa / matches-neither / not-checked, with `blob/`-pinned links). The intro's "Proof" line is the one-peer human summary; this is the complete list for an agent.
**Verify steps:**

1. …

_Found by relay-conformance-audit, <DATE>, @<SHORT_SHA>._

</details>

---

<details>
<summary>🔕 False positive or won't-fix? Add it to the ignore list</summary>

If this finding shouldn't be reported again, add it to the audit's ignore list. From a `getsentry/sentry-cocoa` checkout, copy the prompt below into Claude Code — it will ask you _why_ it should be ignored, then open the PR:

```text
Add relay-audit issue #<ISSUE_NUMBER> to the relay-conformance-audit ignore list.
Read https://github.com/getsentry/sentry-cocoa/issues/<ISSUE_NUMBER>, then follow the
"Adding to the ignore list" section of skills/relay-conformance-audit/SKILL.md: ask me for
the ignore-scenario, append the entry to
skills/relay-conformance-audit/references/findings.md preserving the full fingerprint
context (area | location | summary), and open a short PR against main that
Closes #<ISSUE_NUMBER> with #skip-changelog in the body.
```

</details>

• All links are commit-pinned (blob/<FULL_SHA>/…#L<start>-L<end>, never blob/main), and the intro carries the offending-line link inline — not only in the <details> block.
• The 🔕 ignore prompt points at "Adding to the ignore list" rather than inlining steps (so the two never drift), and hard-codes the issue number — filled by the two-step create in Dedup step 4; verify no <ISSUE_NUMBER> survives.
• On edit, rebuild the whole body from the current run (fresh SHA, links, and issue number).

Console summary

After the issue pipeline, print a severity-sorted summary:

• per filed finding, one line [SEV] <area> — <summary> — <verdict> — <created|edited|reopened (ignore expired)> <issue URL>;
• closed but still reproduces — reopen or ignore: #<n>, #<n> — every closed match that reproduced this run (except expired-ignore reopens, listed above), whether or not a comment was posted this run so the signal persists; omit if none;
• ignore-list entries no longer reproducing — verify & prune: <fingerprint(s)> — references/findings.md entries with no matching mismatch this run (from Procedure step 6b), for a human to prune; omit if none;
• ignore-list entries expired — verify & prune: <fingerprint(s)> — entries whose finding still reproduces but whose ignore-scenario no longer holds (expired-ignore, from Procedure step 3); the row is stale and should be removed; omit if none;
• skipped-ignored <n> (matched the ignore list);
• dropped all-sdks-agree <n> — aggregate count only, never the identity of the dropped findings (they are judged false positives; naming them would make a false positive read as real);
• no longer reproduces — verify & close: #<n>, #<n> — open relay-audit: issues with no matching finding this run (from Procedure step 6), for a human to confirm and close; omit the line if none;
• coverage: line (OK, or GAPS + draft-PR link).

Nothing needs action → say so, still print the closed-still-reproduces line, both ignore-prune lines (no-longer-reproducing and expired), the drop count, the reverse-check line, and the coverage line (any of these can be non-empty even when nothing was filed).

Adding to the ignore list

This section is driven by the copy-paste prompt embedded in each issue (see "Body"): a maintainer who decides a finding is a false positive or won't-fix pastes that prompt into Claude Code, which then runs these steps. This is not part of an audit run — it's a separate, human-initiated action on a single issue.

1. Read the referenced relay-audit: issue and extract the fingerprint triple from where each part lives: area from the intro's **Area:** line; summary from the issue title (relay-audit: <area> — <summary>); location (file + symbol) from the <details> block's Location: line. Copy each verbatim — don't paraphrase the summary, or the findings.md row won't match on later runs and the ignore won't stick.
2. Ask the user for the ignore-scenario — the explicit condition under which the finding stays ignored (e.g. "only a measure-zero boundary of a uniform double", "the index never appears on the wire"). Use AskUserQuestion. Do not proceed on a bare "ignore this": without a scenario the audit can't tell when the mismatch matters again, and the entry would silence a future real regression. Never write a placeholder scenario.
3. If the user's answer reveals the finding is actually a real bug to fix (not something to ignore), stop — say so and do not touch the ignore list. The ignore list is for accepted/normalized-server-side mismatches, not open bugs.
4. Append one row to the ## Ignored table of references/findings.md, preserving the fingerprint verbatim so future runs skip it: | <area> | <location> | <summary>. **Ignore while:** <user's scenario>. (relay-audit #<ISSUE_NUMBER>) |
5. Open a PR against main from branch relay-audit/ignore-<ISSUE_NUMBER>:
   • title chore: ignore relay-audit finding #<ISSUE_NUMBER>
   • body: 1–2 sentences — "Adds finding #<ISSUE_NUMBER> to the relay-conformance-audit ignore list so it's no longer reported. Full fingerprint context is retained so the audit keeps matching it against the ignore list. Closes #<ISSUE_NUMBER>." — then #skip-changelog on its own line. Use Closes (not Refs) so merging the PR auto-closes the now-ignored issue — otherwise the issue lingers open forever (the finding still reproduces, so reverse-check 6a will never surface it for close). The issue closing is correct: an ignored finding is tracked by the findings.md entry, not an open issue.
   • Touch only references/findings.md. Never edit SDK code, SKILL.md, or surface-map.md in this PR. Leave it for human review; do not merge — the human merges, which closes the issue.

Guardrails

• File issues only for real wire-level mismatches. Style issues, dead code, and things Relay normalizes server-side are ignore-list material, not issues.
• Never open a duplicate. Mandatory on every created or edited issue: the relay-audit: title prefix; the leading 🤖 automated-origin banner; the human intro with inline commit-pinned code links and a "Proof of the correct way" peer-repo link (except inconclusive and escape-hatched all-sdks-agree, which instead state why no peer can be cited); the collapsed <details> analysis (also commit-pinned); and the trailing 🔕 copy-paste ignore prompt in its own collapsible <details> block, with the real issue number substituted.
• The ignore prompt must always ask the user for a real ignore-scenario before writing to findings.md, and its PR must touch only findings.md — never SDK code or the skill files.
• Relay paths move: if a listed path 404s, search the Relay repo for the symbol (ItemType, DataCategory, ClientReport) and audit against the moved file; the coverage check turns the path fix into a draft PR it opens directly.
• Bounded cost: one subagent per area plus one coverage-check subagent; don't recurse into SentryCrash/ or other non-protocol code. Cross-SDK corroboration adds only wire-string searches against the 5 named peer repos, and only for needs-action mismatches — not every diff.
• Cross-SDK unanimity is a false-positive filter, not a bug detector: when every located peer agrees with Cocoa, default to dropping the finding and re-read Relay directly before ever reporting it. Report an all-sdks-agree finding only if you remain certain it's a real wire bug, and label it as affecting all SDKs. Never invert the filter — peer agreement lowers confidence in a finding, it never raises it.
• Unanimity requires a quorum of independent implementations: silent-drop (all-sdks-agree) is only allowed with ≥2 independently-implemented located peers all matching Cocoa. Fewer than 2 → inconclusive → report as needs-action, never drop. A wire-string search that misses in every repo must never masquerade as agreement — thin evidence surfaces the finding, it doesn't bury it.
• Two things can never feed a silent drop: (1) a wrapper SDK that delegates the audited surface to another checked SDK (e.g. sentry-react-native → native cocoa/java, or → @sentry/core) — it's not-checked, not a second data point; (2) a peer that matches neither Relay nor Cocoa — a third value forces ecosystem-divergent, always reported. Both guard the same failure: a false all-sdks-agree suppressing a genuine mismatch.

Validation (self-test)

A validation run MUST NOT create, edit, close, or otherwise write any GitHub issue (no gh issue create / gh issue edit / gh issue comment, no gh label create, no draft PR). Validation is a local, dry run only: it builds the finding list in memory and prints the report to the terminal, describing what the issue pipeline would do (create vs. edit, which issue number it would match) without executing it. This is a hard rule — a validation run that touches the real getsentry/sentry-cocoa tracker is itself a failure, regardless of what it found. If you cannot run it without writing, do not run it.

Whenever this skill or the surface map changes materially, validate the audit itself: run it against a pinned historical commit containing a known, since-fixed conformance bug (e.g. b557385bd, the commit before the #8322 fix — case-sensitive X-Sentry-Rate-Limits/Retry-After reads in DefaultRateLimits.swift) via git worktree add, reading the skill from main. It MUST surface that bug as a needs-action mismatch (HIGH or MEDIUM — severity varies between runs; judge on location + failure mode) and report — in the printed local report — that it would create (or edit an existing match) a relay-audit: issue for it, and a run on current main must not. The cross-SDK step must return cocoa-only for it — the independent peer SDKs (java, dart, javascript, python; sentry-react-native is excluded as a wrapper that delegates transport to the native SDKs) read that header case-insensitively (Cocoa was the outlier), which both confirms the finding and exercises the step end-to-end; a validation run that reports the bug but marks it all-sdks-agree (and thus drops it) is a failure. Keep validation runs blind: don't tell them which bug to expect or that a fix exists. Last passed: 2026-07-30 (surfaced the #8322 header bug as HIGH needs-action, verdict cocoa-only; absent on current main).

Running it

• claude.ai routine (now): checkout getsentry/sentry-cocoa main; prompt: "Run the relay-conformance-audit skill at skills/relay-conformance-audit/SKILL.md and follow it exactly. File or update relay-audit: GitHub issues for each needs-action finding, and print the console summary." Weekly cron, e.g. 0 7 * * 3 UTC. Requires an authenticated gh with issue write access.
• CI (later): a scheduled GitHub Actions workflow invoking Claude Code headlessly with the same one-line prompt; GitHub issue writes via gh authenticated with GITHUB_TOKEN (needs issues: write).
• Maintenance: references/findings.md is the ignore list, edited only by humans via reviewed PRs — won't-fix → add under Ignored with an explicit ignore-scenario; no longer ignored → remove the entry. Tracking lives in GitHub: close the relay-audit: issue when the mismatch is fixed.