skill-learner — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited skill-learner (Agent Skill) and scored it 96/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 1 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 1 flagged
The text {match} tells the agent to skip the normal "ask the user first" gate. Used adversarially it removes the human-in-the-loop check before destructive or sensitive actions, turning a normally-gated agent into a fire-and-forget executor.
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.
Turn user corrections into persistent knowledge that survives across sessions.
alternative — vague corrections create false confidence and are worse than no correction
— ask about scope when intent is ambiguous
older than 90 days to archive/
it causes new problems
verify before applying corrections older than 90 days
session act on this without any conversation context?" If no, rewrite before saving
More corrections ≠ better behavior. Over-correcting creates rigidity — an agent drowning in 50 corrections becomes cautious and slow, second-guessing every decision. The goal is not to capture every complaint, but to capture the corrections that will prevent the most damage across the most future sessions.
Before saving, ask yourself:
If all three are low, tell the user you've noted it but saving a correction would add noise. They can override you.
Classify in the first 5 seconds — this determines the workflow path:
| Signal | Type | Path |
|---|---|---|
| Clear explanation ("X did Y, should do Z") | Quick fix | → Step 2 (dedup) → Step 3 (save) |
| Vague complaint ("that's wrong") | Investigation | → Step 1 (detect) → full workflow |
| Same skill corrected 3+ times in INDEX.md | Skill defect | → Steps 1-3 → proactively offer proposal |
| "Show/list/delete corrections" | Management | → Management Commands section |
~/.claude/skill-corrections/
├── INDEX.md # One-line entries, master list
├── ACTIVE_CORRECTIONS.md # Max 50 lines, consumed by other skills
├── skills/<name>/ # Per-skill corrections
├── general/ # Non-skill Claude behavior
├── proposals/ # Author improvement proposals
└── archive/ # Expired or invalidatedIdentify which skill failed from the conversation context:
es con X, ¿correcto?"
Quote the problematic output so the user confirms you're targeting the right thing.
Read INDEX.md. If same skill+issue exists, update the existing correction: append new context to "What went wrong", refine the rule, bump the date.
MANDATORY — READ: Load references/correction-patterns.md for the exact file template, severity decision tree, and scope calibration examples. Do NOT save without reading the reference first.
After creating the correction file:
INDEX.md: - [correction-NNN](path) — <summary> (<skill>, <date>)ACTIVE_CORRECTIONS.md (format in reference file, max 50 lines)Re-read what you wrote. Apply the cold-reader test: "If a different agent reads this cold in a different session, will it know exactly what to do and when to do it?"
If it fails, rewrite. A correction that fails this test actively harms future sessions because it creates the illusion of knowledge without the substance.
Corrections are dead files unless future sessions read them. On the FIRST correction ever saved, ask the user:
"Para que las correcciones funcionen entre sesiones, necesito añadir una línea a tu CLAUDE.md. ¿Lo añado?"
If yes, append to the user's global ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md:
## Skill Corrections
Before executing any skill, check ~/.claude/skill-corrections/ACTIVE_CORRECTIONS.md for relevant corrections and apply them.Check if the line already exists before offering. Only do this once — ever.
Tell the user the correction is saved. Then, only for skill corrections (not "general"):
"¿Quieres que prepare una propuesta de mejora para el autor de la skill?"
MANDATORY — READ: Load references/correction-patterns.md for the proposal template, diff format, and repo detection instructions. Do NOT write a proposal without reading the reference first.
Save to proposals/<skill-name>-proposal-NNN.md. Tell the user the path and suggest submitting as issue/PR to the skill's repo.
When encountering a correction older than 90 days:
MANDATORY — READ: Load references/correction-patterns.md § Correction Decay Procedure for the full archival process.
Quick version: check if the skill was updated since the correction date. If the issue was fixed in the skill itself, archive the correction and notify the user.
When two corrections for the same skill contradict each other:
MANDATORY — READ: Load references/correction-patterns.md § Conflict Resolution Matrix for the severity-based resolution rules.
Core principle: newer wins unless older is critical and newer is minor. Critical-vs-critical conflicts always require user judgment.
| User says | Action |
|---|---|
| "Show corrections for X" | Read and display that skill's corrections |
| "Delete correction NNN" | Remove file + update INDEX.md + ACTIVE_CORRECTIONS.md |
| "List all corrections" | Show INDEX.md |
| "Clear corrections for X" | Move all to archive/, update indexes |
Match the user's language. Write corrections in the language the user described the problem in — nuance is preserved in the original language.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.