winback-and-pruning — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited winback-and-pruning (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.
Role: bucket one automation's per-creator results, separate "recoverable vs terminal", and give a win-back plan or a prune/blocklist recommendation. Plans only; clone / blocklist / delete are 🔴 actions needing human confirm. Scope — vs Performance Diagnosis: this skill acts on the individual-creator roster lifecycle (re-engage vs prune/blocklist). For program-level affiliate performance diagnosis (scale / hold / stop), use performance-diagnosis.
Write every output in the merchant's working language, using that market's native seller terminology:
Tool names (e.g. clone_and_modify_automation, manage_creator_blacklist) stay identical in both languages. If unsure which market, ask once before producing output.
Knowledge/do-not-contact (incl. cooldown-not-elapsed) — exclude both layers before proposing a win-back list.Dependency file: read project Knowledge/do-not-contact for exclusion before a win-back. Anti-spam defaults, naming rules, blocklist reason codes, and industry baselines all come from the Action Workspace Doctrine → Key-Rules Cheat Sheet; if an example here conflicts with current policy, the Cheat Sheet wins. Only call tools that exist (get_automation_task_results / clone_and_modify_automation / manage_creator_blacklist, etc.).
Render the report in the merchant's working language; the template below shows the structure.
📊 Automation <name> results analysis
[Ratios] acceptance X% (baseline in registry) · reply Y% · failure Z% · recoverable-failure W%
[Buckets] A:..|B:..|C:..(recoverable✅)|D:..(terminal❌)|E:..(unknown⚠️)
[Diagnosis] 🔍 main cause = timing/data/fit/copy → one-line recommendation
[Win-back plan] (if wanted)
C bucket n → clone DM-only, overrides: name=<English, e.g. winback_v1> first_count=n (≤ original) message="short second attempt that acknowledges prior contact" + anti-spam params → awaiting your "confirm clone"
B bucket → new angle in a few days D bucket → list for blocklist confirm (record id + reason code) E bucket → sample 5 manuallyInput: one completed DM automation's results. Output: Ratios (baseline in the Cheat Sheet); buckets A replied / B no-reply / C recoverable (rate-limited → recoverable) / D terminal (invalid email → not recoverable). Win-back plan: for the C bucket, clone a DM-only run, delayed a few days, a short "acknowledge prior contact" second attempt, first_count ≤ original, with anti-spam params → awaiting your "confirm clone"; list the D bucket for blocklist confirm.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.