brief-d63e8a — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited brief-d63e8a (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.
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED. Do not edit here. Source: skills/ui-craft/ + commands/*.md. Regenerate with node scripts/sync-harnesses.mjs. -->
Context: this sub-skill is one lens of the broader ui-craft skill. If the ui-craft skill is also installed, read its SKILL.md first for Discovery + Anti-Slop + Craft Test, then apply the specific lens below.
Load references/brief.md for the brief format before proceeding.
Check whether .ui-craft/brief.md exists. Use Read or ls on .ui-craft/.
If it exists: load its contents. If the target the user described names a specific update ("update principles", "shift target user", "add out of scope"), focus the session there and skip unchanged sections. Otherwise summarize what's in the brief and ask: "What do you want to change?"
If it doesn't exist: proceed to Step 2.
Walk the user through the five required sections in a single pass. Ask ONE compact question per section. Do not open five separate prompts unless the user asks for depth.
Compact prompt template:
"To write your design brief I need five things — answer as tersely as you like, I'll fill in structure: 1. Product purpose — what does it do, in one sentence? 2. Primary user — who, by role and context? 3. Principles — what does this product believe? Give me three to five stances it takes. (If you don't have these yet, say so — I'll run the principles workshop.) 4. Success metric — what does 'the user succeeded on this surface' look like in observable behavior? 5. Out of scope — three to five things this surface deliberately does NOT do."
Principles workshop case: if the user says "I don't have principles yet" or gives vague answers ("make it good", "keep it simple"), do NOT fabricate principles from vague input. Load references/principles-catalog.md first. The catalog has 42 worked example principles across 8 product categories — use them as conversation seeds, not as templates to adopt literally. Show 2-3 from the closest category to the user's product, then ask which resonate or which they'd flip. Then run the principles workshop from references/brief.md as a focused sub-flow: ask for three past design decisions that were debated, then derive candidate principles from the patterns. Refuse to accept platitudes — push back and prompt for substance.
Parsing long input: if the user provides a product description or PRD, parse it into the five sections rather than re-asking for information already given. State what you extracted and ask for confirmation or corrections.
Thin answers: if an answer is too vague to constrain a design decision, ask one targeted follow-up. Maximum two follow-ups per section before flagging it as incomplete and moving on.
Always show the proposed brief in full before writing the file. Ask: "Does this look right, or anything to adjust?"
Do not write until confirmed.
Create .ui-craft/ if it doesn't exist. Write the confirmed content to .ui-craft/brief.md.
The file must contain all five sections with the exact headings from references/brief.md. No omissions.
Tell the user the file is at .ui-craft/brief.md. Suggest committing it:
"Commit .ui-craft/brief.md to the repo — it's documentation, not config. The agent reads it every session."Do not auto-commit. Per project rules, commits require explicit user instruction.
[TO DEFINE — YYYY-MM-DD] so the gap is visible.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.