planning — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited planning (Agent Skill) and scored it 92/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 2 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 2 flagged
The text {match} tells the agent to skip the normal "ask the user first" gate. Used adversarially it removes the human-in-the-loop check before destructive or sensitive actions, turning a normally-gated agent into a fire-and-forget executor.
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.
Goal: Understand what the user wants to accomplish and identify which skills belong in the plan.
Read references/input-output-contracts.md, references/model-customization-plan.md, and references/evaluate-first-plan.md to:
During brainstorming:
model-selection skill.Goal: Propose a structured plan for the user to review.
Generate a plan as a numbered list of tasks. Each task has:
Format:
Based on what you've described, here's what I propose:
1. ⬜ **[Task Name]** — [What happens]. *(Skill: [skill-name])*
2. ⬜ **[Task Name]** — [What happens]. *(Skill: [skill-name])*
3. ⬜ **[Task Name]** — [What happens]. *(Skill: [skill-name])*
Does this plan look right, or would you like to change anything?Rules for plan generation:
references/skill-routing-constraints.md.When the user approves the plan, write it to PLAN.md and save it under the project directory structure defined by the directory-management skill.
# Plan
1. ⬜ **[Task Name]** — [Description]. _(Skill: [skill-name])_
2. ⬜ **[Task Name]** — [Description]. _(Skill: [skill-name])_
3. ⬜ **[Task Name]** — [Description]. _(Skill: [skill-name])_Status indicators:
Update PLAN.md whenever a task's status changes.
Goal: Refine the plan until the user approves it.
Once the plan is approved:
PLAN.md to 🔄 (In Progress).PLAN.md to ✅ (Completed). If the task generated output files (scripts, notebooks, manifests), record the file paths under the completed task: - [x] Fine-tune model
- Output: `scripts/01_sft_finetuning.py`
- Output: `manifests/sft-llama-20260515.json`When all tasks in the plan are done: Present to the user:
"We've completed everything in the plan. What would you like to do next?"
This re-enters Phase 1 (Brainstorming) for a new goal. There is no terminal state — the conversation continues as long as the user wants.
Load the reference plan that matches the customer's intent, then adjust based on their needs.
references/evaluate-first-plan.md — The evaluate-first workflow: evaluate a base model before deciding whether to fine-tune.references/model-customization-plan.md — The direct fine-tuning plan. Use when the user has explicitly committed to fine-tuning.references/input-output-contracts.md - A table showing all skills, required inputs, produced outputs, prerequisites, and constraints.references/skill-routing-constraints.md — Optional supplemental resource about Mandatory inclusion rules, ordering constraints, and skill boundary rules.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.