prompt-coach — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited prompt-coach (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.
Coach the user toward better prompts. Intervene only when it matters. Show, don't lecture.
Fire coaching only when one of these conditions is true:
When a prompt triggers coaching:
Example:
Your prompt: "Fix the login bug"
Improved: "Fix the login bug where users get a 401 after OAuth redirect.
The issue is in auth/callback.ts — the session token isn't persisted
before the redirect completes. Expected: user lands on /dashboard
after Google OAuth. Actual: user sees 'Unauthorized' and loops back
to /login."At session breakpoints, scan the conversation for prompting patterns:
Patterns to detect:
| Pattern | Signal | Coaching |
|---|---|---|
| Serial refinement | User needed 3+ follow-ups to get the right output | "Try frontloading constraints: language, framework, file scope, success criteria" |
| Context drip | User provided critical context only after the first attempt failed | "Include the 'why' upfront — it changes the approach" |
| Scope creep | Started with one task, gradually expanded to five | "Split compound requests into individual prompts" |
| Missing examples | User described output format in words when an example would be faster | "Paste an example of what good output looks like" |
| Repeated corrections | Same type of correction across multiple prompts | Surface the pattern, suggest adding it to CLAUDE.md |
Retrospective output format:
## Prompt Patterns — [date]
This session had 12 prompts. 3 patterns worth noting:
1. **Serial refinement on API design** (prompts 3-6)
You refined 4 times before landing on the right interface.
Next time, try: "Design a REST endpoint for X. Must support
pagination, return JSON, follow existing patterns in routes/."
2. **Missing test criteria** (prompts 8, 11)
Both test-related prompts needed follow-up on what to assert.
Next time, include: expected inputs, expected outputs, edge cases.
Prompts 1-2, 7, 9-10, 12 were clear and specific. No notes.! or says "just do it," skip coaching entirely. Respect the override.Use these to evaluate (internally, not shown to user unless asked):
| Dimension | What It Measures |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Can the prompt mean only one thing? |
| Specificity | Are files, functions, or components named? |
| Context | Is the environment, framework, or codebase referenced? |
| Success criteria | Is the expected outcome defined? |
| Scope | Is this one task, not five? |
Score each 1-5 internally. Below 2.5 average = nudge. Above 3.5 = pass through silently.
Provide these as examples when coaching:
Weak: "Add authentication" Strong: "Add JWT authentication to the Express API. Use the existing User model in models/user.ts. Protect all /api/v2/ routes. Store refresh tokens in Redis (already configured in lib/redis.ts). Return 401 with { error: 'unauthorized' } for invalid tokens."
Weak: "Make the tests pass" Strong: "Fix the failing test in tests/checkout.test.ts:47. The CartTotal calculation returns 99.99 but expects 100.00. Likely a floating-point rounding issue in calculateTotal() at lib/cart.ts:23."
Weak: "Refactor this" Strong: "Extract the email-sending logic from OrderController.create() into a separate EmailService class. Keep the same interface. Add error handling so a failed email doesn't roll back the order. Write a unit test for the new service."
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.