wick-red-team — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited wick-red-team (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.
If /steelman is "construct the strongest version of a position you disagree with," wick-red-team is the inverse: take a position you're committed to, find its weakest seams, attack them.
Adopt a hostile-but-smart perspective. For the given plan/design/decision:
Produce 5 critiques, ranked by severity. For each, offer a mitigation — or name the trade-off explicitly as an accepted risk.
## Critique 1 — [severity: critical / high / medium]
**Attack:** [the specific flaw]
**Why it bites:** [conditions under which it breaks]
**Mitigation:** [what would harden against it — or "accepted risk because X"]
## Critique 2 ...
(5 total)
## Net recommendation
Ship / Revise / Rethink — with reasoningPremortem analysis, weaponized. Inversion (Munger) — "how would I guarantee failure?" Gate 4 (Adversarial Convergence) — if red-team and steelman both reach the same concern, that concern is real.
Blunt, not cruel. The goal is to stress-test the plan, not to moralize about the planner. Name-calling and strawmanning are both failures of the skill.
wick-red-team followed by /decide → stress-test before committing/steelman followed by wick-red-team → full adversarial examinationwick-red-team before a major presentation → surface objections the audience would raise~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.