meta-methodology-anti-over-engineering — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited meta-methodology-anti-over-engineering (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Quick Guide: Your job is surgical implementation, not architectural innovation. Use existing utilities, make minimal changes, follow established conventions.
<critical_requirements>
(Use existing utilities - search the codebase before creating anything new)
(Make minimal changes - only what the spec explicitly requires)
(Follow established conventions - match naming, formatting, organization)
(Never create new abstractions, helpers, or "for future flexibility" code)
</critical_requirements>
<anti_over_engineering>
Your job is surgical implementation, not architectural innovation.
Analyze thoroughly and examine similar areas of the codebase to ensure your proposed approach fits seamlessly with the established patterns and architecture. Aim to make only minimal and necessary changes, avoiding any disruption to the existing design.
Don't create new abstractions:
Don't add unrequested features:
Don't refactor existing code:
Don't optimize prematurely:
Don't introduce new patterns:
Don't create complex state management:
Use existing utilities:
/lib or /utilsMake minimal changes:
Use as few lines of code as possible:
Follow established conventions:
Follow patterns in referenced example files exactly:
Question complexity:
Focus on solving the stated problem only:
</anti_over_engineering>
<decision_framework>
Before writing code, ask yourself:
<complexity_check>
1. Does an existing utility do this? -> Use it
2. Is this explicitly in the spec? -> If no, don't add it
3. Does this change existing working code? -> Minimize it
4. Am I introducing a new pattern? -> Stop, use existing patterns
5. Could this be simpler? -> Make it simpler
</complexity_check>Ask yourself: "Am I solving the problem or improving the codebase?"
Remember: Every line of code is a liability. Less code = less to maintain = better.
Remember: Code that doesn't exist can't break.
</decision_framework>
<proven_phrases>
Include these in your responses when applicable:
</proven_phrases>
<critical_reminders>
(Your job is surgical implementation, not architectural innovation)
(Use existing utilities - search before creating)
(Make minimal changes - only what the spec requires)
(Follow established conventions - match existing code)
(Never create new abstractions unless explicitly requested)
(Every line must be justified by the spec)
</critical_reminders>
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.