cli-forge-choice-ux — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited cli-forge-choice-ux (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
The text {match} tells the agent to skip the normal "ask the user first" gate. Used adversarially it removes the human-in-the-loop check before destructive or sensitive actions, turning a normally-gated agent into a fire-and-forget executor.
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.
Optimization: This skill uses on-demand loading. Detailed laws, numeric heuristics, and pattern libraries live in references/.Language rule: Skill instructions are written in English. User-facing output should use the user's language.
Simplify interfaces where users must choose, configure, buy, subscribe, or complete setup. The goal is not "prettier UI"; the goal is fewer doubts, fewer fields, fewer dead ends, and faster confident action.
Use this skill for both:
This skill is a clean local synthesis, not an installed third-party skill. It condenses patterns from:
Read references/principles.md when you need the detailed rule table, scorecard, numeric thresholds, and pattern catalog.
Identify the flow type before making changes:
| Flow | User intent | Main risk |
|---|---|---|
| Checkout/order | Complete purchase | Abandonment from friction or mistrust |
| Pricing/plan picker | Choose the right offer | Choice anxiety, hidden constraints |
| Signup/trial | Create account | Too many fields before value |
| Onboarding/setup | Reach first value | Tutorial fatigue, blank-slate confusion |
| Settings/config | Change behavior safely | Fear of breaking things |
| Product configurator | Build a valid option set | Invalid combinations, overload |
| Wizard | Complete guided setup | Asking too much too early |
| Resource lifecycle | Create, edit, clone, resize, delete a resource | User loses context between operations |
If the flow is unclear, infer from route names, copy, component names, screenshots, or user context. Ask only if ambiguity changes the solution materially.
For each step/screen, list:
Rule: if a decision is not required now, do not put it in the main path.
For lifecycle resources (VMs, projects, clusters, plans, subscriptions, accounts), design one reusable grammar across operations:
| Operation | Same UI grammar | Different safety layer |
|---|---|---|
| Create | Same sections, labels, defaults, summary | Explain new resource impact |
| Edit/resize | Same sections pre-filled from current state | Show diff: before -> after |
| Clone | Same create flow pre-filled from source | Highlight inherited values |
| Delete/cancel | Same resource summary and naming | Require explicit destructive confirmation or undo |
| Restore/rollback | Same summary and status language | Show target restore point and data loss risk |
Do not make users relearn the UI for each operation. The screen may differ, but the vocabulary, section order, summary panel, validation, state labels, and primary/secondary action hierarchy should stay consistent.
Borrow the local CLI ergonomics laws for UI:
Work in this order:
The main path should feel like:
Recognize goal -> choose recommended path -> verify recap -> commit -> recover if neededPrefer these moves:
Use proven interaction math first:
Use visual math second:
When auditing, produce:
## Choice UX Report
**Flow:** [checkout / pricing / signup / settings / configurator / wizard]
**Primary action:** [what user must complete]
**Main blocker:** [top friction source]
### Score
| Dimension | Score /10 | Notes |
|-----------|-----------|-------|
| Decision Load | | |
| Field Friction | | |
| CTA Clarity | | |
| Error Prevention | | |
| Feedback & State | | |
| Trust & Reassurance | | |
| Accessibility | | |
| Lifecycle Consistency | | |
### Must Fix
- [impact] [fix] [location if available]
### Should Fix
- [impact] [fix] [location if available]
### Nice To Test
- [hypothesis] [metric]
### Proposed Flow
1. [step]
2. [step]
3. [step]
### Copy / UI Rewrites
- CTA: "[old]" -> "[new]"
- Label: "[old]" -> "[new]"
- Error: "[old]" -> "[new]"When editing code:
Before finalizing, confirm:
| Need | Recommend |
|---|---|
| General frontend polish | frontend-design or a project design system |
| Technical UI best-practice audit | Vercel-style web interface checklist |
| Marketing page copy/CRO beyond the flow | CRO/copywriting skill |
| Config wizard lifecycle | /cli-audit-wizard |
| Performance bottleneck | /cli-forge-perf |
Recommend handoffs; do not auto-run them unless the user asks.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.