executing-plans — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited executing-plans (Agent Skill) and scored it 45/100 (orange). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 2 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 2 flagged
A base64 string of 128+ characters appears in a documentation file. Encoded prompt injection hides the hostile instruction in base64 — invisible to keyword filters — and relies on the agent's ability to decode it at runtime. There is no normal authoring reason to embed a multi-hundred-byte base64 blob in skill docs.
*.sig, SIGNATURES) outside the documentation.A base64 string of 128+ characters appears in a documentation file. Encoded prompt injection hides the hostile instruction in base64 — invisible to keyword filters — and relies on the agent's ability to decode it at runtime. There is no normal authoring reason to embed a multi-hundred-byte base64 blob in skill docs.
*.sig, SIGNATURES) outside the documentation.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.
Load plan, review critically, execute all tasks, report when complete.
Announce at start: "I'm using the executing-plans skill to implement this plan."
For non-trivial execution, include Aegis Visibility: briefly tie the active slice to its plan, checkpoint, drift or verification boundary. At completion, pass plan adherence, evidence, complexity and residual risk to verification-before-completion for the unified receipt.
If subagents are available and the plan has genuinely independent tasks, prefer subagent-driven-development; lack of subagent support does not block inline execution. Same-task agents share one workspace, and the coordinator remains the only Git mutation owner.
Execution Readiness View,read it before implementation and compare the plan against its intent lock, scope fence, baseline lock, owner / contract constraints, compatibility boundary, retirement boundary, test obligations, review gates, drift / rewind rules, and evidence required before completion.
return to plan review or refresh the advisory handoff before editing.
Mode, Decision, Strict authority,strict signals, light eligibility, Test posture, and verification. Strict steps require either an explicit user/project request or a recorded auto decision; plan approval or risk labels alone are not authority. An off-mode missing record may be repaired only as Mode: off / Decision: skipped without loading TDD. Missing/unsupported auto decisions return to plan review. An auto-light record is unsupported when any strict signal is present or when its tiny/low-risk/single-owner/no-behavior-change proof is incomplete. Only Decision: strict with recorded strict authority may authorize steps named Write failing test, Verify RED, GREEN, or REFACTOR. Do not infer strict during execution.
TaskStartSnapshot: root, HEAD, branch ordetached state, upstream divergence, staged/unstaged/untracked paths, active Git operations, and git worktree list --porcelain. Preserve task-preexisting state; do not stash, reset, clean, or commit it.
goal owns it. If justified, switch/create it in the current workspace when safe; a worktree still requires concurrent checkout or blocking dirty state.
If the plan has multiple tasks, may span sessions, or includes architecture / contract / workflow changes:
Before a verification-driven unplanned edit, read retained PatchShape, CanonicalOwner, UpwardDrillSignal, outcome, and evidence refs. Route their comparison with the candidate to systematic-debugging before editing; it decides whether the directions converge. A proven independent canonical-owner root stays on the normal plan path.
For interface/interaction changes, compose ui-ux-governance before affected edits and verify the plan's scoped experience criteria at the relevant user seam.
For each task:
Change Necessity or create a compact one if the plan failed to carry it forward. Plan approval is not by itself proof that a new helper, small guard, new branch, fallback, adapter, or owner is necessary.
Change Necessity:
- User-visible need:
- No-change / non-code option:
- Why code change is necessary:
- Minimum change boundary:
- Decision: no-change | docs/config-only | code-change | needs-clarificationIf the decision is not code-change, pause execution and return to plan review instead of editing. If the decision is code-change, carry the minimum boundary into the edit and verification scope.
Pre-Edit Complexity Check or create a compact one:
Use using-aegis/references/complexity-governance.md for shared artifact classes, pressure signals, and over-budget handling.
Complexity Budget:
- Artifact class:
- Target files / artifacts:
- Current pressure:
- Projected post-change pressure:
- Budget result: within-budget | at-risk | over-budget
- Planned governance:
Pre-Edit Complexity Check:
- Target edit file:
- Existing pressure signal:
- Safer edit boundary:
- Decision: edit-in-place | extract helper | add owner file | split task | pause for plan update
Pre-Edit Owner-Fit Decision:
- Edit intent: wiring-only | move-out / extract-first | local-fix-without-new-responsibility | new-responsibility | emergency / compatibility patch
- Owner fit:
- Safer edit boundary:
- Decision: edit-in-place | extract helper | add owner file | split task | pause for plan updateIf the check contradicts the plan's file boundary, pause and return to plan review instead of silently stuffing logic into an overloaded owner. If the budget result is over-budget and the task does not also govern that overrun, stop execution and return to plan review rather than pushing the task through as if it were still atomic. When the target edit file is over-budget or mixed-purpose, new-responsibility must not be added in place by default. wiring-only, move-out / extract-first, and local-fix-without-new-responsibility may proceed only when they do not add a new responsibility and the verification boundary is clear. emergency / compatibility patch requires residual risk and a retirement trigger.
its planned verification, use verification-before-completion before a default local commit, stage only task-owned paths, and read back HEAD, the committed file list, and remaining task delta. no commit, read-only, no-change, and failed-verification tasks create no normal commit.
TodoCheckpointDraft and DriftCheckDraft before marking the task completed.When an Execution Readiness View exists, the drift check must explicitly compare the active slice against the view's intent lock, scope fence, baseline lock, compatibility boundary, retirement boundary, test obligations, and review gates.
After all tasks complete and verified:
use aegis:finishing-a-development-branch;
verification-before-completion, report the local task commitand Task clean / Repository clean, and do not invent merge/PR ceremony.
STOP executing immediately when:
Ask for clarification rather than guessing.
Return to Review (Step 1) when:
Don't force through blockers - stop and ask.
main/masterRequired workflow skills:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.