lens — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited lens (Agent Skill) and scored it 82/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 2 high-severity and 0 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} is the classic direct prompt-injection phrasing. Placed in a skill body that the agent reads as trusted instructions, it tries to make the agent abandon its prior rules and follow whatever comes next — a full system-prompt override.
ignore/disregard/forget … previous instructions sentence.The text {match} is the classic direct prompt-injection phrasing. Placed in a skill body that the agent reads as trusted instructions, it tries to make the agent abandon its prior rules and follow whatever comes next — a full system-prompt override.
ignore/disregard/forget … previous instructions sentence.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.
Deeply analyze a large document, codebase, or transcript that's too big to reason about by skimming. Uses ACTIVE RETRIEVAL (map → query → synthesize) over Kimi K3's 1M window instead of dumping everything in at once — which avoids the "lost in the middle" failure mode of naive long-context prompting.
/lens [target + what you want to know]
/lens [files...] [question]/lens vs alternatives/lens | /decompose | gemini_analyze_text | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input | Large existing content (≤1M) | A problem to split | A single argument/text |
| Strategy | Map → query sections → synthesize | Split into sub-problems | Rhetoric/bias dissection |
| Use when | "Understand this big thing" | "Break this problem down" | "Analyze this claim" |
When user invokes /lens [target]:
Identify the target (file paths or pasted content). Get a structural map BEFORE deep analysis:
mcp__tachibot-mcp__kimi_long_context({
content: "[paste content here, OR a one-line note if using files below]",
files: ["path/to/file1", "path/to/dir/**"],
task: "summarize",
outputFormat: "structured",
query: "Map the structure: list the major sections/modules/themes and what each covers. Do NOT analyze yet — just produce the table of contents."
})Present the map to the user: "Found [N] sections: ... Diving into the relevant ones."
For the user's actual question, query specific aspects rather than re-reading everything:
mcp__tachibot-mcp__kimi_long_context({
content: "[content]",
files: ["..."],
task: "analyze",
outputFormat: "detailed",
query: "[the user's specific question, scoped to the relevant sections found in Step 1]"
})Use task: "extract" to pull specific facts, "find" to locate something, "compare" to contrast sections.
If the content argues or claims things, get an independent second read on the key parts:
mcp__tachibot-mcp__gemini_analyze_text({
text: "[the key claims/sections surfaced in Step 2]",
type: "key-points"
})mcp__tachibot-mcp__nextThought({
thought: "Synthesize the long-context analysis of [target].\n\nFindings:\n[Step 2 + Step 3 results]\n\nProduce:\n1. Direct answer to the user's question\n2. Key insights (ranked)\n3. Relations/dependencies across sections\n4. Inconsistencies or gaps found\n5. What to look at next",
model: "gemini",
executeModel: true,
contextWindow: "all",
nextThoughtNeeded: false
})If kimi_long_context is unavailable, fall back to gemini_analyze_text (1M context) using the files parameter for the analysis steps.
## Lens: [target]
### Answer
[Direct answer to the question]
### Key Insights
1. [ranked insight]
...
### Relations / Dependencies
[How sections connect — what depends on what]
### Inconsistencies & Gaps
[Contradictions or missing pieces found]
### Look At Next
[Where to dig further]/lens src/**/*.ts how does auth flow through this codebase?/lens [paste 80-page spec] what contradictions exist between sections 3 and 7?/lens server.log find the root-cause chain for the 02:14 outage/lens compare these two RFCs and tell me where they disagree~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.