service-boundary-analysis — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited service-boundary-analysis (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 this skill when asked to inspect a backend service, microservice, worker, or API repository to identify what enters the service and what the service sends, writes, publishes, schedules, or otherwise emits.
Do not use this skill for runtime tracing, code modification, full architecture design, security review, database schema design, or claiming complete certainty for dynamic framework behavior.
This skill teaches read-only, multilingual, heuristic service-boundary inspection. It defines boundary categories, discovery heuristics, evidence requirements, confidence scoring, and the required report shape.
It does not decide whether to run a separate agent, coordinate multi-phase work, execute the analyzed application, install dependencies, edit source code, or replace human review.
Inputs and Outputs MUST include category, mechanism, source/destination, file, line/range, symbol, confidence, evidence, discovery method, and notes.unavailable when line/range or symbol cannot be derived; never omit the field.Inputs table and exactly one Outputs table in the final report.Classify service entrypoints into these categories:
Classify service egress and side effects into these categories:
scoped observability emissions means boundary-relevant metrics, traces, audit events, logs, or telemetry that leave the process or are intentionally consumed outside the service. Do not list incidental local debug logging unless it is configured as a boundary signal.
Combine multiple signals before classifying a finding:
controllers, routes, handlers, listeners, consumers, jobs, workers, clients, repositories, publishers, schedulers, config.post, put, patch, delete, save, insert, update, publish, send, emit, enqueue, schedule, set, invalidate, index, upsert.Common frameworks/languages include but are not limited to Java/Spring, Kotlin, Node/Express/Nest/Fastify, Python/FastAPI/Django/Flask/Celery, Go net/http/Gin/Chi, Ruby/Rails, C# ASP.NET, PHP/Laravel/Symfony, Kafka/Rabbit/SQS/PubSub consumers, and cron/scheduler libraries.
| Confidence | Use when | Examples |
|---|---|---|
high | Direct code evidence identifies both the boundary mechanism and the source/destination. | @PostMapping("/orders"); kafkaTemplate.send("orders.created", ...); redis.set(...). |
medium | Evidence is indirect but supported by framework conventions, registration, or cross-file wiring. | Handler registered by module wiring; queue name loaded from config and referenced by consumer setup. |
low | Finding is plausible but incomplete, inferred mainly by names/conventions, or blocked by dynamic/runtime wiring. | OrderPublisher without visible topic; reflection-generated route; destination hidden in unavailable config. |
Confidence reasons belong in notes. If evidence is insufficient to classify, keep the item in Uncertain Findings instead of forcing it into a high-confidence category.
| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| Target scope is missing | Ask one blocking question for the repository/path/module to inspect. |
| User asks to modify or run the service | Refuse that part and continue only with read-only static inspection if enough context exists. |
| Evidence identifies a boundary directly | Add it to the relevant table with high confidence. |
| Evidence is indirect but corroborated | Add it with medium confidence and explain the inference. |
| Evidence is ambiguous or incomplete | Add it to Uncertain Findings or table it with low confidence and explain why. |
| Category has no evidence in inspected scope | List it under Not-Found Categories. |
Inputs table and one Outputs table, then add uncertainty, not-found categories, and limitations.Return a Markdown report with this structure:
# Service Boundary Analysis Report
## Scope
<target, files/paths reviewed, exclusions>
## Inputs
| category | mechanism | source/destination | file | line/range | symbol | confidence | evidence | discovery method | notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
## Outputs
| category | mechanism | source/destination | file | line/range | symbol | confidence | evidence | discovery method | notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
## Uncertain Findings
- <finding, evidence, why confidence is limited>
## Not-Found Categories
- Inputs: <categories not found in inspected scope>
- Outputs: <categories not found in inspected scope>
## Limitations
- <dynamic wiring, missing config, generated code, uninspected paths, or other limits>The Inputs and Outputs tables are mandatory even when no findings are found. If empty, include one row with none found in category, unavailable for unavailable fields, low confidence, and notes explaining the inspected scope.
None.
None.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.