cognitive-output-refiner — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited cognitive-output-refiner (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.
Use only when the user explicitly asks in English to refine, summarize, compact, deduplicate, or reduce the cognitive load of textual output such as Markdown, console output, logs, test results, or agent responses.
Do not activate automatically just because output is long. If the input is already concise, say no refinement is needed and offer at most a micro-improvement.
[REDACTED_TOKEN].Inference, Likely cause, or Possible next step; never present them as input facts.| Input | Strategy |
|---|---|
| Markdown/docs | Preserve useful hierarchy, improve headings, merge duplicated sections. |
| Console/logs/tests | Group by signal: result, errors, warnings, files, commands, next steps. Preserve order only when causal. |
| Agent/LLM output | Remove repetition, separate decisions from explanations, cut unnecessary narrative. |
Create a file only when the user asks to save/create a document or provides a file as input. Save in the current working directory unless a path is provided. Infer the topic when possible; ask only if unclear. Use {topic_snake_case}_v<semver>.md; do not save the original. Start at v1.0.0 when no prior refined version exists.
SemVer: patch for clarity/order/deduplication, minor for added information or structure changes, major for changed interpretation.
Return this shape, omitting optional sections when empty. Optional sections are Preserved Details, Information Loss, and Compression Notes. Evaluate each Satisfaction Check item honestly before rendering; if any item fails, fix the output before asking the user.
## TL;DR
- <2-4 bullets with the essential signal>
## Refined Output
<clean, grouped, non-duplicative output>
## Preserved Details
<errors, redacted commands/paths, public/non-sensitive IDs, decisions, redacted placeholders, or other must-preserve facts; never include credential material or ambiguous sensitive identifiers>
## Information Loss
<Low/Medium/High only when compression risk exists>
## Compression Notes
<meaningful removals, merges, or heading changes>
## Satisfaction Check
- [ ] Preserves the important facts.
- [ ] Removes duplicated/noisy content.
- [ ] Is easier to scan.
- [ ] Does not invent conclusions.
- [ ] Fully replaces credential material and redacts sensitive identifiers before rendering.
Are you satisfied with this refined version?If the user is not satisfied, ask one correction question at a time:
### Question N — [direct question]
**Recommended answer:** [short suggested answer]
**Why this matters:** [why this affects the correction]
**Estimated remaining questions:** ~MAfter resolving feedback, generate a new complete version, not a patch.
Input headings Error Details and More Error Details that repeat the same failing test should become one ### Test Failure section, with the duplicate merge noted in Compression Notes.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.