code-health-check — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited code-health-check (Agent Skill) and scored it 45/100 (orange). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 1 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 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.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.
Analyze the codebase at $ARGUMENTS and produce a structured health report.
eval() or similar dangerous functions?Use these to categorize issues:
| Severity | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| CRITICAL | Must fix immediately | Hardcoded secrets, SQL injection |
| WARNING | Should fix soon | Missing error handling, large files |
| INFO | Nice to improve | Minor duplication, naming conventions |
Return a structured report in this exact format:
# Code Health Report: {directory}
## Overall Score: {A/B/C/D/F}
## Summary
- Files analyzed: {count}
- Issues found: {critical} critical, {warning} warnings, {info} info
## Critical Issues
{list each with file:line and description}
## Warnings
{list each with file:line and description}
## Info
{list each with file:line and description}
## Recommendations
{top 3 actionable recommendations}~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.