software-development-workflow — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited software-development-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.
Make coding agents behave like careful software engineers: define what is being changed, understand the existing system, make focused edits, debug from evidence, handle security risk explicitly, and only claim completion after verification.
Use the smallest workflow that can safely finish the task, but do not confuse the smallest workflow with the cheapest patch. For non-trivial or durable work, choose the best-fit solution for the task's risk, lifetime, and project architecture.
Do not load every reference by default. Load only the references/ files whose routing conditions match the current task.
This skill coordinates one software change from intent to evidence. It does not replace project knowledge, external research, skill authoring, or handoff skills; it calls or yields to them when their trigger is stronger.
research-to-knowledge.project-knowledge.write-agent-skill.write-agent-handoff.This skill does not replace the core starter skills.
write-agent-skill instead of this skill.project-knowledge before coding.research-to-knowledge before coding.write-agent-handoff after or instead of this skill.Load references from references/ only under these conditions:
| Reference | Read When | Skip When |
|---|---|---|
references/task-contract.md | Requirements are unclear, behavior changes, acceptance criteria are missing, or verification needs to be decided before code. | The task is a tiny mechanical edit and "done" is obvious. |
references/context-plan.md | The change is multi-file, unfamiliar, architectural, API/DB/schema-related, dependency-related, likely to affect compatibility, or may need a local-vs-systemic decision. | The touched file and local pattern are already obvious. |
references/implementation-loop.md | You are about to edit code, tests, config, or generated-source inputs. | You are only reviewing or diagnosing with no edits. |
references/debugging-loop.md | A test/build/runtime failure, bug report, flaky behavior, or unexpected output appears. | You are implementing a planned change and nothing is failing. |
references/security-gate.md | The task touches auth, authorization, PII, secrets, permissions, untrusted input, file uploads, payments, external integrations, destructive operations, or supply-chain risk. | There is no security or privacy boundary in the change. |
references/done-gate.md | Before claiming work is complete, fixed, reviewed, ready, passing, or safe to ship. | Never skip for non-trivial coding tasks. |
If several references apply, read them in workflow order: task contract, context plan, implementation loop or debugging loop, security gate when relevant, then done gate.
research-to-knowledge or context-plan.md before committing to a local implementation.rg, targeted file reads, existing docs, and exact commands over broad repository scans.project-knowledge.For normal coding tasks, finish with:
| Failure | Recovery |
|---|---|
| The task route is unclear | Start with references/task-contract.md and define the smallest safe contract. |
| The change grows beyond the original scope | Stop, name the scope expansion, and ask or split the work. |
| Verification fails | Use references/debugging-loop.md; do not continue feature work on top of failure. |
| Security risk appears mid-task | Load references/security-gate.md before editing further. |
| Completion evidence is stale or partial | Load references/done-gate.md, rerun the relevant checks, and report only what the evidence supports. |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.