gh-issue-improvement — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited gh-issue-improvement (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.
This skill generates a well-structured improvement/enhancement proposal for GitHub issues based on the conversation context and saves it to .ai/gh_issues/YYMMDD-<short-issue-name>.md. This skill is specifically designed for improvements and enhancements - not for bug reports or error fixes.
When invoked, this skill extracts improvement information from the current conversation and creates a standardized GitHub enhancement proposal document.
Use this skill for:
direct_api_call)Do NOT use this skill for:
Review the conversation to identify:
Create a filename using the pattern:
.ai/gh_issues/YYMMDD-<short-issue-name-with-dashes>.mdWhere:
YYMMDD: Current date in 2-digit year, month, day format (e.g., 260128 for January 28, 2026)<short-issue-name-with-dashes>: A brief, descriptive name using lowercase letters and dashes (e.g., migrate-logs-to-direct-api, optimize-pagination-logic, consolidate-nft-tools)Example: .ai/gh_issues/260128-migrate-logs-to-direct-api.md
Write a Markdown document with the following sections:
# [Brief Title of the Improvement]
## Description
[Short description of the improvement - 2-3 sentences summarizing what is being proposed]
## Motivation
[Clear explanation of why this improvement is needed - what problems does it solve, what benefits does it provide]
## Current State
[Description of how things work currently, including any limitations or pain points]
## Proposed Changes
[High-level description of what should change conceptually. Focus on WHAT changes, not HOW to implement them. Avoid step-by-step implementation details, specific file paths, or granular action items. Keep it strategic and outcome-focused.]
## Expected Benefits
[List of concrete benefits that will result from this improvement - can include improved performance, better maintainability, reduced complexity, etc.]Example of well-formed "Proposed Changes" section:
## Proposed Changes
- Transition the standalone tool to a handler-based architecture consistent with similar tools
- Maintain backward compatibility by preserving the REST API endpoint with deprecation notices
- Consolidate response processing logic within the dispatcher pattern
- Update all references in documentation and integration examples to reflect the new approachMUST INCLUDE:
MUST NOT INCLUDE:
blockscout_mcp_server/tools/direct_api/handlers/x_handler.py)STYLE GUIDELINES:
PROPOSED CHANGES - GOOD EXAMPLES:
✓ "Consolidate transaction-related tools under a unified dispatcher pattern" ✓ "Deprecate the dedicated tool in favor of the generic direct_api_call interface" ✓ "Preserve existing response processing logic while relocating it to a handler" ✓ "Update documentation to reflect the new tool architecture"
PROPOSED CHANGES - BAD EXAMPLES:
✗ "Create handler module at blockscout_mcp_server/tools/direct_api/handlers/x_handler.py with @register_handler decorator" ✗ "Update REST API in api/routes.py to return deprecation response with 410 status code" ✗ "Remove import of transaction_summary function from server.py" ✗ "Migrate tests: Delete test_transaction_summary.py and create new handler tests"
After creating the file, confirm:
When the user says:
/gh-issue-improvementYou should:
.ai/gh_issues/260128-consolidate-transaction-tools.mdThis skill can document various types of improvements:
direct_api_call handler pattern~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.