elixir-docs-review — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited elixir-docs-review (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.
| Issue Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| @moduledoc, @doc quality, anti-patterns | references/doc-quality.md |
| @spec, @type, @typedoc coverage | references/spec-coverage.md |
MyModule)function/2)t:typename/0)| Issue | Flag ONLY IF |
|---|---|
| Missing @moduledoc | Module is public AND not a protocol impl |
| Missing @spec | Function is public AND exported |
| Missing doctests | Function is pure AND deterministic |
| Generic @doc | Doc restates function name without adding value |
Work in order. Do not draft or ship a finding until the prior step passes.
.ex/.exs file paths (or Module names) under review; no vague “the project” scope.@moduledoc block for module-level claims), not only a diff hunk or search snippet.[FILE:LINE] ISSUE_TITLE header (line range allowed) and includes a verbatim quote or pointer to the @doc / @spec / doctest text in question. Module.function/arity may appear as supporting context but does not replace the [FILE:LINE] anchor. For “doctest fails” claims, Pass when: you cite mix test output for the relevant file or line, or the exact error string.~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.