intake-project — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited intake-project (Agent Skill) and scored it 91/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 1 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
The text {match} is the classic direct prompt-injection phrasing. Placed in a skill body that the agent reads as trusted instructions, it tries to make the agent abandon its prior rules and follow whatever comes next — a full system-prompt override.
ignore/disregard/forget … previous instructions sentence.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.
/manage-project init scaffolds new projects; its script is the source of truth for that tree, including the qc/ folder the QC skills write to. Use the layout below to reorganize an existing project that was never scaffolded, mapping each artifact into one of these slots or into a folder the init scaffold or another skill already writes to.
{project_root}/
├── HANDOFF.md # session handoff entry point
├── README.md # project overview
├── data/ # raw data (NEVER edit; read-only)
├── analysis/ # reproducible scripts (00_* → 04_*)
├── output/ # analysis outputs: CSVs, PNGs, intermediates
├── qc/ # QC reports the skills write (self-review, checklists, audits)
├── irb/ # IRB/ethics docs
├── proposal/ # original protocol / approved proposal
├── reviews/ # external correspondence
├── manuscript/ # SOURCE manuscript + drafting
│ ├── manuscript_v{N}.{md,docx,pdf} # current canonical working version (top level)
│ ├── build_unified_docx.py # or pandoc wrapper
│ ├── archive/ # ALL prior versions v1 .. v{N-1}
│ ├── reviews/ # review notes (QC reports go in qc/ at the root)
│ ├── figures/ # figure scripts + rendered PNG/PDF
│ └── tables/ # table scripts + rendered docx
└── submission/ # per-journal packages
└── {journal-slug}/ # e.g., chest/, kjr/
├── CHECKLIST.md
├── cover_letter.{md,docx,pdf}
├── title_page.docx # separated for double-anonymized
├── manuscript_anonymized.{docx,pdf}
├── supplement.{docx,pdf}
├── strobe_checklist.md # or PRISMA / CONSORT
├── circulation_email.md
└── figures/ # submission-ready DPI copiesmanuscript/manuscript_v{N}.md; never edit anonymized/title-page directly.manuscript/manuscript_v{N}.{md,docx,pdf}. Older versions move to manuscript/archive/ immediately on version bump.HANDOFF.md, README.md, the project memory files (Phase 3), the contract files /manage-project init writes (SSOT.yaml or project.yaml, project_state.json, artifact_manifest.json), and folder entries.qc/ at the project root, where the skills that produce them write them, not at manuscript top level.cp -r submission/{old} submission/{new}, then rewrite cover letter and reformat.submission/{journal}/./manage-project init — unless the user only wants a quick assessment.submission/{journal}/ and populate.manuscript/ has >3 versioned files or QC docs at top level, reorganize.Determine:
original | review | meta-analysis | case report | technical note | grant | peer review | challenge | career-docradiology | medical AI | multimodal LLM | intervention | survival/prognostic | diagnostic accuracy | workflowpaper | abstract | grant | review | rebuttal | CVidea | data assembly | analysis planning | analysis in progress | drafting | revision | submission prep | archived/unclearIf the folder mixes several studies, say so rather than collapsing them into one.
Gate: Present the classification (project type, stage, target output) to the user. Confirm before creating any files — misclassification leads to wrong scaffold and wrong skill routing.
Check for blocking dependencies and common gaps:
If missing, propose or create lightweight anchor files — PROJECT.md, STATUS.md, CLAIMS.md, DATA_DICTIONARY.md, ANALYSIS_PLAN.md, REVIEW_LOG.md — only those the project type justifies. Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/memory_templates.md when creating PROJECT.md or STATUS.md.
Output this structure:
## Project Intake Summary
Project: ...
Type: ...
Current stage: ...
Likely target: ...
### What exists
- ...
### What is missing
- ...
### Risks / ambiguities
- ...
### Recommended next actions (3-5, in dependency order)
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...After intake:
search-lit if the literature basis is weakdesign-study if the research question exists but design logic is unclearmanage-project if the folder should be scaffoldedwrite-paper only after the project phase is clearly drafting~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.