cell-workflow — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited cell-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 cell- skill to use at the current stage* of a manuscript aimed at Cell* (Cell Press).
Default assumption: unless the user states otherwise, the target is Cell (the flagship), not Molecular Cell, Cell Reports, Cell Reports Medicine, Developmental Cell, or other Cell Press titles. The family shares STAR Methods, Highlights, eTOC, and Graphical Abstract conventions, but differs sharply on scope and breadth — flag the difference if the user names a sibling.
Cell does not publish a single striking observation. It publishes a complete, mechanistic, hypothesis-driven story: a conceptual advance supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that converge on a mechanism. Descriptive or single-result papers are desk-rejected. Route to cell-fit first, always.
Cell editors reject most submissions before review. The bar is conceptual advance + mechanistic completeness, not technical correctness alone. The first question is never "is the science right?" — it is "is this a complete, mechanistic story a broad life-sciences readership will care about?" Route to cell-fit first.
| Current symptom | Next skill |
|---|---|
| Not sure it's a complete, mechanistic, broad-interest story | cell-fit |
| Story is solid but the arc/narrative is fragmented | cell-framing |
| No Highlights / eTOC blurb / Graphical Abstract | cell-highlights |
| Abstract (Summary) is long, structured, or under-quantified | cell-summary |
| Main text wanders; length/structure off; Discussion bloated | cell-writing |
| Figures over budget; fonts/colors/stats reporting off | cell-figures |
| No Key Resources Table / Resource Availability incomplete | cell-star-methods |
| No data/code deposition plan or accessions | cell-data |
| References not in Cell author–date style | cell-citation |
| About to submit; need a preflight + cover letter | cell-submission |
| Received reviews / a revision decision | cell-rebuttal |
cell-fit — clear the complete-mechanistic-story bar firstcell-framing — lock the single narrative arc (hypothesis → mechanism → significance)cell-writing — Article structure and length disciplinecell-figures — finalize display items within budgetcell-star-methods — Key Resources Table + Resource Availability + QSAcell-data — data / code deposition and the availability statementcell-summary — the ≤150-word Summary (late polish)cell-highlights — Highlights + eTOC blurb + Graphical Abstract (late polish)cell-citation — author–date reference passcell-submission — cover letter + preflightcell-rebuttal — after reviewcell-summary,cell-highlights, andcell-citationare late-stage polish. Do not perfect the Highlights before the story and figures are settled.
cell-fit (likely not yet a Cell story)cell-framingcell-highlightscell-star-methods (Cell uses STAR Methods)cell-star-methods (Key Resources Table)cell-citation (Cell is author–date)cell-datacell-fit and start polishing prose — the modal outcome is pre-review rejection.cell-framing.All conventions here are working defaults — confirm against current Cell Press author guidelines.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.