roast — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited roast (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.
Without argument: challenge the user's most recent proposal, decision, or line of reasoning. With argument (e.g. /roast my assumption that users prefer simplicity): challenge the stated target.
Attack through whichever lenses apply:
If the reasoning is solid, say "I don't see holes in this" and stop — don't manufacture objections.
Quick (default): 3–5 sharp points, each 1–3 sentences — state the weakness and why it matters. No preamble, no softening.
Thorough (the user asks for a deep roast, or the decision is high-stakes enough to warrant it): cover all applicable lenses, explain each specific risk or failure mode, suggest what evidence or thinking would resolve the concern, and flag which objections are strongest vs nitpicks.
Challenge their specific reasoning, not generic best practices. For artefact review, point to /critic instead.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.