code — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited code (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.
When this skill triggers, call the code tool from the ejentum MCP server. Pass a 1-2 sentence framing of WHAT you are coding or reviewing as the query argument. Include the failure risk to avoid where possible.
Good query: review a Python refactor that converts raise UserNotFound to silent default return; tests still pass Bad query: look at this code
The tool returns a structured scaffold containing:
[CODE FAILURE]: engineering failure pattern to avoid[ENGINEERING PROCEDURE]: steps to follow[REASONING TOPOLOGY]: decision flow[CORRECT PATTERN]: shape correct code should take[VERIFICATION]: self-checkAmplify: and Suppress: signalsAbsorb internally. Do NOT echo bracket labels in the user-facing reply. Apply the scaffold's failure-pattern check against your draft before responding; if your code exhibits the named failure, rewrite.
If the API is unreachable, proceed with native engineering. The scaffold enhances; it is not a hard dependency.
Latency cost: ~1 second. Benefit: catches the kinds of behavioral changes and silent contract violations that look plausible but break under real conditions.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.