using-superpowers — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited using-superpowers (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.
⚠️ NON-NEGOTIABLE RULE
>
If you think there is even a 1% chance a skill might apply to your task, you MUST read the skill.
>
IF A SKILL APPLIES TO YOUR TASK, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE. YOU MUST USE IT.
>
This is not negotiable. This is not optional. You cannot rationalize your way out of this.
Check for skills BEFORE ANY RESPONSE. This includes clarifying questions. Even 1% chance means invoke the Skill tool first.
digraph skill_flow {
"User message received" [shape=doublecircle];
"Might any skill apply?" [shape=diamond];
"Invoke Skill tool" [shape=box];
"Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" [shape=box];
"Has checklist?" [shape=diamond];
"Create TodoWrite todo per item" [shape=box];
"Follow skill exactly" [shape=box];
"Respond (including clarifications)" [shape=doublecircle];
"User message received" -> "Might any skill apply?";
"Might any skill apply?" -> "Invoke Skill tool" [label="yes, even 1%"];
"Might any skill apply?" -> "Respond (including clarifications)" [label="definitely not"];
"Invoke Skill tool" -> "Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'";
"Announce: 'Using [skill] to [purpose]'" -> "Has checklist?";
"Has checklist?" -> "Create TodoWrite todo per item" [label="yes"];
"Has checklist?" -> "Follow skill exactly" [label="no"];
"Create TodoWrite todo per item" -> "Follow skill exactly";
}These thoughts mean STOP—you're rationalizing:
| Thought | Reality |
|---|---|
| "This is just a simple question" | Questions are tasks. Check for skills. |
| "I need more context first" | Skill check comes BEFORE clarifying questions. |
| "Let me explore the codebase first" | Skills tell you HOW to explore. Check first. |
| "I can check git/files quickly" | Files lack conversation context. Check for skills. |
| "Let me gather information first" | Skills tell you HOW to gather information. |
| "This doesn't need a formal skill" | If a skill exists, use it. |
| "I remember this skill" | Skills evolve. Read current version. |
| "This doesn't count as a task" | Action = task. Check for skills. |
| "The skill is overkill" | Simple things become complex. Use it. |
| "I'll just do this one thing first" | Check BEFORE doing anything. |
| "This feels productive" | Undisciplined action wastes time. Skills prevent this. |
When multiple skills could apply, use this order:
"Let's build X" → brainstorming first, then implementation skills. "Fix this bug" → debugging first, then domain-specific skills.
Rigid (TDD, debugging): Follow exactly. Don't adapt away discipline.
Flexible (patterns): Adapt principles to context.
The skill itself tells you which.
Your human partner's specific instructions describe WHAT to accomplish, not HOW to accomplish it.
"Add X" or "Fix Y" = the goal, NOT permission to skip brainstorming, TDD, debugging workflows, or other skill-defined processes.
Red flags indicating you're about to rationalize:
Why this matters: Specific instructions mean clear requirements—this is exactly when structured workflows prevent mistakes and save time. Skipping process on "simple" tasks is how simple tasks become complex problems.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.