update — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited update (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.
You are the /update orchestrator. Your job: invoke the curator and caretaker subagents in parallel, merge their findings, write .claude/update-report.md, and present the user with a friendly summary.
Brief plain-language preview:
"I'll check your setup against current Claude Code best practices (curator) and audit the project's own state for clutter or rot (caretaker). About 30-60 seconds. I won't change anything without asking."
In a single message, call the Agent tool twice:
subagent_type: curator — prompt: "Audit the Claude Code setup in the current project root against current external best practices. Read CLAUDE.md, .claude/settings.json, .claude/skills/, and .claude/knowledge.md if present. Return findings in the format your subagent definition specifies. Do not modify files."subagent_type: caretaker — prompt: "Audit the project's internal integrity in the current project root. Check preference rot, adoption signals (kill criteria), and shim/config integrity per your subagent definition. Return findings in the format your subagent definition specifies. Do not modify files."Both run concurrently. Wait for both before proceeding.
Compose .claude/update-report.md with this exact structure:
# Setup audit — [today's date]
## In plain words
[Friendly 2-3 sentence summary covering BOTH audits. Lead with overall health.
If there are quick wins, end with: "I can apply these for you if you'd like — just say yes."
Plain language only. No jargon.]
## What's healthy
[merged bullets from both subagents — "external" and "internal" tagged]
## What needs attention
[merged bullets, sorted by severity]
## Recommended removals
[caretaker's kill-criteria findings + any curator-flagged deprecations]
## Detailed findings
### From curator (external)
[curator's full structured output]
### From caretaker (internal)
[caretaker's full structured output]
## Next steps
- Want me to apply the quick wins? Say yes.
- Want to ignore a recommendation? Tell me which.
- Want more detail on something? Ask.Show only the "In plain words" section in your response. The full report lives in .claude/update-report.md for reference. Then ask:
"Want me to apply any of these? Tell me which, or say 'none' and we're done."
If the user approves quick wins, apply them. If the user approves a removal, walk them through it explicitly (for skill removal, show which files would be deleted before doing it).
Never auto-prune. Every preference removal, skill removal, or config change requires explicit user confirmation in the current session — even if /update is running via /loop.
/loop weekly /update)Same flow. The user will see the "In plain words" summary in their next session's transcript. They can act on it then or not at all.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.