ssoty 0.1.6

Static cross-harness rule coherence auditor for AI coding agents (Claude Code, Codex, ...)

ssoty

English | 한국어

Static cross-harness rule DIVERGENCE auditor for AI coding agents. Two models, one "shared" rule set — but do they actually operate under the same rules? Usually not.

ssoty reads the effective rule surfaces of multiple agent harnesses (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, Gemini, Cline) and shows — deterministically, with no LLM and no network — where two models diverge: which rules one model applies that the other never sees, which shared rules load under a different guarantee (always-on vs skill-gated), and which cross-references break across the boundary. It also quantifies the per-turn token cost ("Context Tax") as a secondary metric.

---

The problem

You point Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor at one "shared" rule set and expect identical behavior. They don't behave identically — because each harness resolves a different effective rule set. The same canonical file can:

• load always-on in one harness (injected every turn) but skill-gated in another (loaded only when a skill triggers) — same file, unequal guarantee;
• reference a sibling rule that exists in one harness but was never distributed to the other — a broken pointer across the boundary;
• be duplicated across files, paying token rent every turn.

The result: the same prompt, the same repo, but different effective rules per model — so they behave inconsistently, and it's invisible until one model quietly ignores a rule you "share."

Rule divergence (the headline)

$ uvx ssoty diff examples/messy-setup --a claude-code --b codex

  claude-code  vs  codex
      only in claude-code (1): team-rules.md
      same rule, different load (1):
          shared-style.md  claude-code=always-on  |  codex=skill-gated
      broken cross-references across the boundary (1):
          codex:shared-style.md -> 'team-rules.md'  (loads only in claude-code, NOT in codex)
      VERDICT: claude-code and codex do NOT operate under the same rules
               (1 rule only in claude-code, 1 loads differently, 1 broken cross-ref)

ssoty diff answers the one question that matters: do these two models operate under the same rules? Run it across every present pair (omit --a/--b), or compare two named harnesses. --json and --redact supported; the command is strictly read-only.

What ssoty does

$ uvx ssoty audit examples/messy-setup
ssoty audit — 2 Critical, 3 Warning, 6 FYI

  [Critical] broken_symlink (claude-code)
      .../.claude/rules/broken-link.md
      symlink target does not resolve: ./nope.md

  [Critical] dangling_cross_ref (codex)
      .../.codex/skills/global-agent-rules/references/shared-style.md
      references 'team-rules.md', which exists in another harness but is NOT
      loaded by 'codex' — broken pointer across the harness boundary

  [Warning] load_asymmetry (claude-code+codex)
      shared-style.md
      same rule loads differently per harness (claude-code=always-on,
      codex=skill-gated) — shared file, unequal guarantee
  ...
  [FYI] dangling_cross_ref (codex)
      references 'meta-layout.md' (absent here, intentional per .ssotyignore)

It distinguishes a genuine broken cross-reference (Critical) from intentional non-sharing you declared in .ssotyignore (FYI) — precision over noise.

Also measures: Context Tax (token rent)

Secondary metric — the per-turn token cost of each surface and duplicate content paid every turn. Useful for before/after cleanup, but the pitch is divergence above, not token rent.

$ uvx ssoty metrics examples/messy-setup     $ uvx ssoty metrics examples/clean-setup
  claude-code:                                  claude-code:
      always-on  : 206 tokens                       always-on  : 149 tokens   (-27.7%)
  codex:                                        codex:
      skill-gated: 106 tokens                       skill-gated:   0 tokens

Numbers are reported per harness and never summed across harnesses: always-on (actual, every turn) and skill-gated (potential, only when a skill fires) are different load guarantees. Compare within one harness, before vs after a cleanup. Token counts are a deterministic char/4 heuristic by default (portable — same numbers on any machine); set SSOTY_EXACT_TOKENS=1 to opt into tiktoken.

Reproduce: uvx ssoty metrics examples/messy-setup (see benchmarks/REPORT.md).

Checks

Check	Severity	What it catches
broken_symlink	Critical	symlinked rule whose target is gone
dangling_cross_ref	Critical / FYI	a rule references a sibling absent in this harness (FYI if declared intentional)
load_asymmetry	Warning	same rule, different load basis per harness
duplicate_content	Warning	identical blocks duplicated across files (token rent)
non_shared_surface	FYI	a rule present in one harness only
skill_integrity	Warning	skill dir without a SKILL.md

Install

# zero-install run
uvx ssoty diff                  # cross-model rule divergence (the headline; all present pairs)
uvx ssoty audit                 # audits $HOME (~/.claude, ~/.codex)
# or install
pipx install ssoty
ssoty diff --a claude-code --b codex  # compare two named harnesses (read-only)
ssoty audit --redact            # mask home paths + emails in output
ssoty audit --ci                # exit non-zero on any Critical (for CI)
ssoty audit --format sarif      # SARIF 2.1.0 (for github/codeql-action/upload-sarif)

--format {text,json,sarif} selects the audit output (default text); --json is a back-compat alias for --format json.

Fix (dry-run + backup first)

ssoty fix                       # DRY-RUN: prints what WOULD change, writes nothing
ssoty fix --apply               # perform safe fixes; backs every touched file up first
ssoty fix --apply --scaffold-ignore   # also append non-shared rule names to .ssotyignore

ssoty fix is dry-run by default — it prints exactly what it would do and changes nothing. Only --apply writes, and even then it first copies every file it will touch into a timestamped backup dir under the audited root (.ssoty-backup/<timestamp>/, path-preserving) and prints that location. It performs only safe remediations: removing a broken symlink (its target does not resolve, so no real content is lost) and, with --scaffold-ignore, recording intentionally non-shared rule names in .ssotyignore. It never edits your real rule files, never touches a valid symlink, and is idempotent (running it again does nothing). Add .ssoty-backup/ to your gitignore so backups are never committed.

CI (GitHub Action)

- uses: snowlaxc/ssoty@v0
  with: { path: . }             # runs `ssoty audit --ci`

Harness adapters (optional)

Thin wrappers so you can run ssoty from inside an agent:

• Claude Code: copy adapters/claude-code/skills/ssoty into ~/.claude/skills/
• Codex: copy adapters/codex/skills/ssoty into ~/.codex/skills/

The CLI is the product; adapters just shell out to it.

How it works

ssoty resolves each harness's effective rule surface from disk (which files load, and whether always-on or skill-gated), then runs deterministic checks. No model calls, no network — same input, same output. It is harness-agnostic by design: a cross-harness tool shouldn't live inside one harness.

Supported harnesses

Claude Code (~/.claude/rules, CLAUDE.md), Codex (AGENTS.md, global-agent-rules), Cursor (.cursor/rules/*.mdc with alwaysApply frontmatter, legacy .cursorrules), GitHub Copilot (.github/copilot-instructions.md), Gemini CLI (GEMINI.md, ~/.gemini/GEMINI.md), and Cline (.clinerules/ directory, legacy .clinerules, AGENTS.md). Empty harnesses are skipped. Point ssoty at $HOME or a project root.

Privacy

ssoty audits your config; its output can quote your rules verbatim. It runs entirely locally (no hosted service). This repo ships synthetic fixtures only. See SECURITY.md. Never commit ssoty output to a public repo.

Roadmap (phase 2)

ssoty fix (auto-dedup), opt-in live "canary" runtime probe, LLM semantic conflict detection, Gemini support, marketplace packaging.

Background

The design rationale lives in docs/RFC.md.

License

MIT