cc-workflow — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited cc-workflow (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 is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you *which cc- skill to use at your current stage** of a Cancer Cell (Cell Press) molecular / translational oncology manuscript.
Default assumption: unless the user says otherwise, treat the target as Cancer Cell, where the bar is a clear molecular mechanism validated across orthogonal systems (cells + in vivo + ideally human data), reported with STAR Methods rigor, framed for translational relevance without overclaiming.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Unsure whether the story is a Cancer Cell paper at all | cc-scope-fit |
| Mechanism rests on one system (cells only / no in vivo / no human data) | cc-study-design |
| Controls, replicates, randomization, or blinding are unclear | cc-study-design |
| No Key Resources Table; cell lines unauthenticated; antibodies unvalidated | cc-reporting-standards |
n undefined, pseudo-replication risk, wrong test, error bars unlabeled | cc-statistics |
| Representative images with no quantification; multi-panel figure messy | cc-figures-tables |
| Need Summary / Highlights / eTOC blurb / graphical abstract | cc-structured-abstract |
| Missing IACUC/IRB approval, consent, biosafety, or data-availability statement | cc-ethics-registration |
| Prose overclaims; Results read like a lab notebook; weak Discussion | cc-writing-style |
| Need a cover letter framing fit and significance | cc-cover-letter |
| About to submit and need a final preflight | cc-submission |
| Reviewer reports arrived; need a point-by-point response | cc-peer-review-revision |
cc-scope-fit — confirm mechanism + translational relevance before investing morecc-study-design — design / audit orthogonal validation, controls, replicates, in vivo rigorcc-reporting-standards — STAR Methods, Key Resources Table, authentication, RRIDscc-statistics — define n, pick tests, correct for multiplicity, label error barscc-figures-tables — multi-panel mechanistic figures with quantification + image integritycc-structured-abstract — Summary, Highlights, eTOC blurb, graphical abstractcc-ethics-registration — approvals, consent, biosafety, data-deposition statementscc-writing-style — Cell Press prose and claim calibration (polish stage)cc-cover-letter — significance / fit / suggested reviewerscc-submission — pre-submission preflightcc-peer-review-revision — after reviewer reportscc-writing-styleandcc-structured-abstractare late-stage polish — do not finalize them while the mechanism or in vivo validation is still missing.
cc-study-design (add in vivo / human validation)cc-reporting-standardscc-statistics (pseudo-replication)cc-figures-tablescc-scope-fit then cc-writing-stylecc-ethics-registration / cc-submissioncc-peer-review-revisionIf the work is a clinical trial or epidemiological cohort with patient-level outcomes as the core unit, a clinical-trial pack (CONSORT / STROBE / registration) fits better. Cancer Cell's unit is a mechanism validated across systems, not a trial endpoint.
cc-scope-fit — editors triage on mechanism + translational fit firstcc-figures-tables polish panels before cc-statistics has fixed n and testscc-peer-review-revision draft a response before the revised experiments / text exist~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.