cdo-review — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited cdo-review (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.
Command: /cs:cdo-review <plan>
The decision-driven CDO pressure-tests any plan that touches data strategy. Six questions before any commitment to a data architecture, AI training run, data productization, or data team hire.
If no decision is unblocked, why are we collecting / training on / productizing it?
For each data source: origin, consent flow, data class, intended use.
ai_training_data_audit.py if there's any AI use case in scope.Drives the centralize-vs-embed and warehouse-vs-mesh decisions.
If an acquirer asks about this data corpus tomorrow, are we ready?
data_asset_valuator.py quarterly.Tests how much you depend on a specific data source.
Wrong hire (data scientist) when right answer (analytics engineer) is a 12-month productivity loss.
# 1. AI training audit (if any ML / AI use case)
python ../../../skills/chief-data-officer-advisor/scripts/ai_training_data_audit.py sources.json
# 2. Architecture decision (if changing the stack)
python ../../../skills/chief-data-officer-advisor/scripts/data_product_strategy_picker.py profile.json
# 3. Data asset valuation (if productizing or pre-M&A)
python ../../../skills/chief-data-officer-advisor/scripts/data_asset_valuator.py corpus.json# CDO Review: <plan>
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
## The Decision Being Made
[one sentence — which of the four CDO decisions: training | architecture | asset | hire]
## Training Audit (if applicable)
- NO-GO sources: N
- MITIGATE sources: N
- GO sources: N
- Top remediation: <one line>
## Architecture (if applicable)
- Recommended: WAREHOUSE / LAKEHOUSE / MESH
- Build-vs-buy summary: <one line>
- Kill criteria: <when to revisit>
## Asset Value (if applicable)
- Strategic value: X/10 | Moat: STRONG / MEDIUM / WEAK
- M&A multiplier: X.Xx – X.Xx ARR
- Recommended productization path: <name>
## Org (if applicable)
- Next hire: <role>
- Why this, not that: <one line>
- Prerequisite hires in place: yes/no
## Verdict
🟢 SHIP | 🟡 SHARPEN | 🔴 BLOCK
## Next Steps
[3 concrete actions]/cs:gc-review — for any productization or licensing path/cs:ciso-review — for any architecture change touching customer data/cs:cfo-review — for build-vs-buy TCO and M&A valuation mathcs-chro-advisor agent — for data team hires (comp, ladder, leveling)/cs:decide — log the verdict/cs:freeze 90 — on multi-year infrastructure contractscs-cdo-advisorchief-data-officer-advisor../../../skills/general-counsel-advisor/ (contractual constraints), ../../../skills/cto-advisor/ (architecture capacity)Version: 1.0.0
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.